You are on page 1of 215

ODOARDO FIALETTI (1573-C.

1638) : THE INTERRELATION OF VENETIAN ART AND ANATOMY, AND HIS IMPORTANCE IN ENGLAND Volume I

Laura M. Walters

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews

2009

Full metadata for this item is available in the St Andrews Digital Research Repository at: https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/736

This item is protected by original copyright

Odoardo Fialetti (1573 c. 1638): The Interrelation of Venetian Art and Anatomy, and his Importance in England

Laura M. Walters Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Art History University of St Andrews 25 April 2009

Declaration (i) I, Laura M. Walters, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 80,508 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. Date: Signature of Candidate:

(ii) I was admitted as a research student in September 2005 and as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in September 2005; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2005 and 2008. Date: Signature of Candidate:

(iii) I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date: Signature of Supervisor:

(iv) In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews we understand that we are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. We also understand that the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker, that my thesis will be electronically accessible for personal or research use unless exempt by award of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be required in order to allow such access and migration. Date: Signature of Candidate:

The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding the electronic publication of this thesis: Access to Printed copy and electronic publication of thesis through the University of St Andrews. Date: Signature of Candidate: Signature of Supervisor:

Table of Contents Declaration Table of Contents List of Abbreviations Acknowledgements Abstract Chapter I: Introduction Chapter II: Fialettis Paintings 1. Introduction 2. Fialettis Drawings 3. A Historiographical Examination of Early Printed Sources 4. The Lost Paintings 4.1. San Nicol della Lattuga A Private Commission for a Venetian Church 4.2. San Canziano Paintings for Scuole or Guilds 4.3. The Casa Correggio Private Commissions 4.4. Crociferi 5. Extant Paintings 5.1. Tolentini 5.2. San Giuliano 5.3. Santi Giovanni e Paolo 6. Conclusion Chapter III: Fialettis Printed Works 1. Introduction 2. The Early Period (1594 1608) 2.1. The Early Single Prints 2.2. Nicoletto Giganti and the Scola, Overo Teatro 2.3. An Undated Allegorical Print 3. The Middle Period (1608 1619) and Il vero modo et ordine 3.1. Tritons and Nereids 3.2. Book of Landscapes 3.3. The Hunts 3.4. Friezes with Trophies prints after Polidoro da Caravaggio 3.5. The Wedding at Cana after Tintoretto 3.6. Virgin and Child with a Young St John the Baptist on a Rim of Clouds 3.7. The Engraved Portraits of Marcantonio Memmo and Curti 3.8. The Four Divinities Series after Pordenone 3.9. La Pittura Trionfante 3.10. The Scherzi dAmore 4. The Mature Period (1619 1638) and an Engraved Portrait of Titian 4.1. Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa 4.2. Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata ii iii v vi vii 1

16 17 23 33 35 36 39 41 44 44 46 50 54

56 57 58 62 65 68 79 82 84 86 88 90 91 93 96 98 101 102 104

ii

4.3. De gli Habiti Religioni 4.4. The Ornamental Pattern Books 5. Conclusion Chapter IV: Fialetti and Anatomy 1. Introduction 2. History of the Anatomical Treatise 2.1. Vesalius and the Illustrated Anatomical Treatise 3. The 1604 Venetian Fabrica 4. Giulio Casseri and Tiberio Fialetti 4.1. The History of Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae 4.2. The Form of the Tabulae Anatomicae 4.3. Surface Anatomy 4.4. Plates of Muscles 4.5. Books of Veins, Arteries, Nerves and Internal Organs 5. The Cost of a Scientific Treatise in the Seicento A Comparison 6. Northern European Copies after De Humani Corporis Libri Decem 6.1. English Copies 7. The Uses of the De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem 8. Conclusion

107 110 115

117 119 123 126 128 131 133 136 137 141 141 143 146 147 149

Chapter V: Fialetti and his Impact on the Early Modern Aesthetic in England 1. Introduction 152 2. The English Interest in Venetian Art 153 3. Sir Henry Wotton and the Four Portraits of Doges 156 3.1. Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton 160 3.2. Similar Seicento Depictions of the Doge Meeting an Ambassador 164 3.3. The 1611 View of Venice 169 3.4. Baron Roos and the Scherzi dAmore 170 3.5. Daniel Nys 172 4. The Earl and Countess of Arundel 174 4.1. Edward Norgate 180 4.2. Inigo Jones 184 4.3. Sir Anthony van Dyck 186 5. Fialettis Impact on Later English Artists 189 6. Conclusion 195 Chapter VI: Conclusion Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Catalogue of Italian Paintings Bibliography 198 208 216 250 309 316 326 344

iii

Abbreviations and Notes of Guidance - Please note that unless otherwise stated, dates pertaining to archival material are given in the modo veneto. - Appendices for each chapter contain both plates and documents. There are no in-text figures. - The Catalogue of Italian Paintings can be found as Appendix VI, rather than being included in Appendix II. - Due to variations in print quality, marginalia, paper type and quality, binding, and provenance information, call and/or accession numbers are provided for specific copies of rare books and prints consulted.

LIBRARY AND MUSEUM COLLECTIONS APV Archivio Patriarcato di Venezia, Venice ASV Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Venice BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome BL British Library, London BM British Museum, London BNF Bibliothque Nationale de France, Paris BNM Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice COR Correr, Venice HUN Hunterian Museum, Glasgow LVR Muse Nationale du Louvre NLS National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh ROY Royal Collection, London STA University of St Andrews Special Collections, St Andrews WAR Warburg Library, London WEL Wellcome Library, London

iv

Acknowledgements I would first like to thank Professor Peter Humfrey and Dr Alexander Marr for supervising my doctoral research and the writing of this thesis. Their generous guidance, assistance and support has been invaluable. I would also like to thank the School of Art History at the University of St Andrews: this would not have been possible without the support of the wonderful faculty and staff. I would also like to thank the Russell Trust, for funding one of my research trips. To the British Museum Department of Prints and Drawings, I extend my heartfelt thanks for assisting me in my research there over the last three years. I would like to thank the Royal Collection. In particular, I would like to thank: Lucy Whitaker, Assistant Surveyor of the Queens Pictures, for her gracious assistance in copying the information they hold on the Fialetti paintings; Chris Stevens for taking the time to meet with me and show me the painting in Hampton Court Palace; Rupert Featherstone for providing conservation information about the Fialetti paintings in the collection; the curators, conservators and staff at Kensington Palace for their assistance in arranging a visit to see the paintings of Doges in the Kings Drawing Room; and Desmond Shawe-Taylor, for taking time to discuss the Fialetti paintings with me in January 2008. I extend my thanks also to Henrietta Ryan at Eton College, for her correspondence, information and assistance concerning Fialettis View of Venice hanging in the college. I would like to thank the Dpartment des Arts Graphiques in the Louvre, for their kind assistance in my examination of the two Fialetti drawings in their collection. I would like to thank Dr David Howarth, at the University of Edinburgh for taking the time to meet with me and discuss Fialetti and Arundel. I would like to thank the reading room staff, archivists, and researchers in the British Library, the Warburg Institute, the Wellcome Library, the National Library of Scotland, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (and the Gabinetto di Stampe of the Vatican Museums) in Rome, the Archivio Patriarcato di Venezia, the Archivio di Stato di Venezia, the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, and the University of St Andrews Special Collections. I would like to thank my friends and colleagues for their support, laughter and many cups of coffee. My colleagues, Sarah Schell, Zenobia Kozak, Allison Sherman, Michelle Huang, Jay Tzeng and Joseph Hammond, for all of their support. And my friends: Fiona Lang, Thomas Gtz, Kristin Ott, Elizabeth Austin, Julia Smith, Blerina Kellezi, Sarah Wiebenson, Frances Jurek and Alice Velsko. Thank you for being there. And most especially, Id like to thank my family: my mum, Beverly Walters for her unending support and encouragement, my sisters, and all of my aunts, uncles and cousins.

Abstract

Bolognese artist Odoardo Fialetti (1573 c.1638) is a fascinating figure upon which curiously little work has been done. Though he is a rarely discussed pupil of Tintoretto, Fialettis oeuvre is vast (some 55 known paintings and approximately 450 prints) and incredibly diverse. His work encompasses religious subjects, portraits, books on drawing and sport, maps, and illustration for treatises on city defences, literary texts, and anatomy. His work was influential for several hundred years after his death, not only in Venice and northern Italy, but also in France where his designs were used as decoration on faence produced at Nevers, and England, where his paintings were much admired at court. Fialettis close association with Sir Henry Wotton, and the careful copy of his drawing book made by Alexander Browne in the mid-seventeenth century, attest to his impact on the formation of an Italianate sensibility in the appreciation of the visual arts in Early Modern England. In the realm of science, Fialettis influence can be deduced from his drawings of curiously animated cadavers in detailed landscapes to those of future generations of anatomists and illustrators throughout Europe. Because of the diverse associations and projects throughout his career, the study of Fialetti is inherently interdisciplinary, encompassing the history of art, history of science and history of the Venetian book trade, as well as crossing geographical boundaries in linking Venetian art and English tastes of the late renaissance and early baroque. Through examination of his extant oeuvre, as well as discussion of lost work, I aim to recognise Fialettis status as an artist responding to contemporary artistic debates (disegno versus colorito), a changing cultural climate and the burgeoning importance of the printed medium.

vi

Chapter I: Introduction

Odoardo Fialetti (1573 c. 1638) was named by Seicento authors as being one of the greatest draughtsmen in the world,1 and one of the choicest Italian artists.2 By the twentieth century, by contrast, he has been relegated to the status of a copyist and minor pupil of Tintoretto. This later assessment might have some justification if Fialetti is regarded simply as a painter, and if his paintings are compared with those of his master, and of contemporaries such as Palma il Giovane. Fialettis oeuvre, however, was extraordinarily diverse. His known works encompass not only paintings but also prints, depicting religious subjects, portraits, books on drawing and ornament, and illustrations of city defences, sport, hunting, allegory and mythological subjects, maps, literary subjects, and anatomical treatises. Furthermore, he enjoyed the support of an exceptionally wide circle of patrons, and the knowledge we have concerning his patronage is crucial to our understanding of his life and career. Instead of describing a second-rate artist, he is praised and noted especially by those who responded to the burgeoning interest in Venetian disegno (over the more traditional colorito), not only in Italy, but also, and perhaps more importantly, in England. His close association with the collecting and connoisseurship activities of these English circles in Venice, and the later copy of his drawing book by Alexander Browne, attest to his impact on the formation of an Italianate sensibility in the appreciation of the visual arts in Early Modern England. Fialetti exemplifies the changing role of the artist in the early Seicento: not only does he respond to the new importance placed on disegno, but he does so in conjunction with the
1

A. de Paolo Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, Bologna (Per lErede di Vittorio Benacci) 1666, 635. [BL, Rare Books, 660.a.6] 2 A. Browne, The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching, London 1660. [BL, Rare Books, C.123.f.22]

rising importance of the printed medium,3 creating a vast body of work which approaches 500 known prints, thus dwarfing the number of known paintings (less than 50). His response to prints, though in line with contemporary interests and tastes, may also account for his relatively little known stature; the nature of a print its relative accessibility and availability, and its orientation more toward individual viewing or reading in a private environment, as opposed to the reception of a painting viewed by a group of people in a public space often affords the artist a lower status based on that lack of public reception and description. Fialettis work is also interesting historically for its interdisciplinarity: most obviously this takes form in his illustrations for Casseris anatomical atlas, and his early exposure to anatomical drawing (through his brother Tiberio). Unlike other artists involved in anatomical illustration, who often remained anonymous, Fialettis name remains prominent in his work for Casseri, and thus it becomes easier to trace the influence of his illustrations on future generations of students, artists and anatomists.

Therefore, in the study of Fialetti, four primary themes emerge: the diversity of his oeuvre, the importance of his patronage, and the impact that had on his influence and later reception, his clear shift toward disegno and its translation into the printed medium, and his interdisciplinarity. While these aspects of his career define what is both unique and interesting about him as an artist, they also account for the difficulty and previous reluctance of scholars to fully study him. His varied associations and oeuvre make him difficult to characterise in the context of a framework that previously separated artists
3

For further reading on the increasing importance of the printed medium, see: E.L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe, Cambridge and New York 2005.

into tiers and by medium. In this thesis, I aim to explore this diversity and breadth of work, examining paintings, prints and drawings, in conjunction with early printed sources, and separately discussing both the anatomical illustrations and his importance in English collecting circles, and his impact on later English art.

Before addressing his oeuvre however, it is important to attempt a reconstruction of Fialettis life. There are only a handful of early biographies, the majority of which only name his artistic parentage of Giovanni Battista Cremonini in Bologna and Tintoretto in Venice. Of the very early accounts, Antonio di Paolo Masinis Bologna Perlustrata of 1666 only states that Fialetti was a one of the best disciples of Tintoretto before describing the diversity of his prints and paintings.4 Because Masinis text is not specific to artists, he does mention Fialettis brother Tiberio, stating that he was a Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine, having studied at Padua.5 This fraternal relationship will become particularly important in light of Malvasias account of Fialettis early exposure to anatomical drawing through his brother, thus making him one of the very few artists who was exposed to scientific drawing in childhood, then using that as a basis for his future interests in the human body and good disegno.

The first complete account of Fialettis life, is found in Malvasias Felsina Pittrice of 1678.6 He opens his biography stating that Odoardo was the posthumous son of a
4 5

A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, 635. See No. 1, Appendix 1. A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, 636. 6 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, Bologna (Per lErede di Domenico Barbieri) 1678. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3] See No. 2, Appendix 1. It should also be noted that several modern biographies of Fialetti exist, though these are generally cursory and while they do accept the general timeline outlined by the early authors, they lack much of the detail (which cannot be substantiated). See: F. Benvenuti, Fialetti, Odoardo, Grove Dictionary of Art, http://www.groveart.com , 2008. V. Maugeri, Fialetti, Odoardo, Dizionario biografico

Dottore Odoardo, though he does not specify the nature of his fathers qualifications.7 The family was originally from Beaufort-sur Dozon in Savoy,8 though had settled in Bologna before Odoardos birth on 18 July 1573.9 He was apprenticed to Cremonini at age nine, learning the foundations of good disegno, before moving to Padua with his brother, and then to Venice.10 He travelled to Rome, and on his way (according to Malvasia), passed through a number of other studios and workshops, including Ludovico Carraccis in Bologna, Guercinos academy in Cento, and that of Guido in Rome.11 Malvasia is unclear as to when these travels occurred after he left the Cremonini studio, and where this fits in relation to his journey to Padua with his brother before continuing to Venice.12 However, if one assumes he entered the Cremonini workshop aged nine (in 1582), journeyed then to Padua with his brother, his travels would likely have concluded by c. 1590 in order to develop his esteem under Tintoretto in the years directly preceding

degli Italiani, vol. 47, 1997, 322-324. C. Galetti, Fialetti, Odoardo, Enciclopedia della Pittura, vol. AeG, 930. 7 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 301. Later biographies suggest that his father was a Doctor of Laws at Padua. Benezit specifies that Fialettis father was born into a noble family of lawyers and in addition to being a professor at Padua was also dean and rector. Benezit, Fialetti, Odoardo, Dictionary of Artists, vol. 5, Paris 2006, 669. 8 Ibid.. 9 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 301. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. There is not much available concerning Fialettis travels or associations with other studios and workshops. However, the association with Guercino is likely given his later academic tendencies and a similarity in drawing books between the two. Boschinis biography of Fialetti, included in Malvasia (with his letter identifying Fialettis paintings in Venetian churches), states that he wanted to go to Rome to study the work of Michelangelo, Raphael and Polidoro. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 311. See No. 3, Appendix I. 12 A. da Mosto lists the name Fialetti in the index of the Cittadinanze Originarie, which dates from 1569 to 1801, however, I was unable to find reference to the name anywhere in the index, either referring to Odoardo, his son, or their family, and thus their arrival and status in Venice is uncertain. A. da Mosto, LArchivio di Stato di Venezia: Indice Generale, vol. I, Venice 1937, 75. Indice Cittadinanze Originarie, Avogaria di Comun, b. 440 (Microfilm no. 192). [ASV] The term cittadini originarie refers to the nonnoble rank of citizens, who had to prove three generations of Venetian ancestry, and thus any inclusion of the name Fialetti in this index is likely to relate to his descendants.

his death in 1594. Malvasia also states that Fialetti married his first wife in Ancona, though she died soon after, and he remarried in Camerino.13

Little is known about Fialettis entry into Venice and his time in the studio of Tintoretto. It would seem likely that the artist lived near Tintorettos house and studio in Cannaregio, and thus may have been a member of one of the parish churches in that sestiere, or indeed Tintorettos own parish of Madonna dellOrto. Masini named him as one of the best disciples, and Ridolfi, in his life of Tintoretto, describes the masters instructions to the young artist: to draw, and then draw again, reasoning that it was disegno that gave grace and perfection to painting.14 However given his late date of entry, it is very unclear as to the relationship between the two, and the amount of interaction the young artist would have had with the ageing Tintoretto.15 Beyond these basic descriptions, there exists only a few pieces of hearsay, including a recurring note in modern biographies stating that he was the executor of Tintorettos will.16 This particular detail is unsubstantiated in available primary documentation: Tintorettos will was filed on 30 May 1594 by the notary Antonio Brinis,17 and he died on 31 May of that same year, however the text of the will itself does not mention Fialetti or an executor of the will.18 There is also no record of the reasons for Fialettis entry into the Tintoretto studio, though it is my hypothesis that it
13 14

C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 311. C. Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dellArte, vol. II, Padova 1837, reprint 2000, 248. See No. 4, Appendix 1. 15 M. Falomir, in his recent catalogue supposes that Tintorettos long career as a painter was fundamentally over by 1590. M. Falomir, Tintoretto, exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid 2007, 59. 16 Benezit, Fialetti, Odoardo, 669. 17 Jacopo Tintoretto, Atti, Notaio Brinis, Archivio Notarile, 30 May 1594. [ASV] The will itself was unavailable for consultation on a number of visits I made to the Archivio di Stato, however the text is transcribed in a number of contemporary sources, including M. Falomir, Tintoretto. 18 Because the will was unavailable for consultation, as was the busta in which it is held, it is impossible to say if Fialetti is mentioned in supporting documents (which would likely be found in the Acts/Proceedings from this notary), or whether it was written on the outer sheath of the will before it was unsealed. I have been unable to find a transcription of these aspects of the will in any modern sources.

was his mastery of human anatomy which gained, and then maintained his place.19 This aspect of disegno was a particular interest of Tintoretto, and thus it would not be unheard of for him to take a specialist in the area. Additionally, a number of biographers claim that Fialetti left Bologna to avoid competition with the Carracci.20

The earliest known record of Fialettis activity after the death of Tintoretto dates from 1596, when it was stated he was listed as a printmaker21 (though his earliest dated print is the Venus and Amor from 1598). Fialetti is first listed as a painter in 1604, and only appears to be a member of the Arte dei Pittori until 1612.22 While it is plausible that the records of the guild are incomplete and Fialettis membership extended beyond these eight years, contemporaries including Domenico Tintoretto, Giacomo Franco and Marco Sadeler (listed as a paper seller) are listed until 1634, 1619, and 1639 respectively, thus suggesting that the records for this period are at least partially complete.23 Beyond Fialettis memberships in both the painters and printmakers guild, my research has shown that he was also a member of the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro between the years

19

It appears to have been a relatively common practice in the Tintoretto studio to take apprentices with particular specialties, including also, Ludovic Toeput (Pozzoserrato) who was a specialist in landscapes. 20 F. De Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, Venezia (co Tipi del Gondoliere) 1840, 356. [BL, Rare Books, 1402.k.5] See No. 5, Appendix I. This is also repeated in a number of modern biographies, though the difference in competition Fialetti incurred in Venice with his contemporaries, including Palma il Giovane, must be compared to that which he was supposedly avoiding. One can make the case that despite Fialettis Venetian training, his style was based in the Bolognese naturalism in which he was exposed under Cremonini and thus would warrant clearer comparison with the Carracci than the Venetians. 21 F. Benvenuti, Fialetti, Odoardo. The Archivio di Stato records for the Arte degli Intagliatori comprise one busta and do not extend as far back as the Seicento. Arte degli Intagliatori, Arti, b. 159, 1768 1805. It should also be noted that Fialettis name does not appear in the Arte dei Libreri, Stampatori e Ligadori, suggesting that he was not involved in this aspect of printed book production. Registri Atti, Arte dei Libreri, Stampatori e Ligadori, Arti, b. 163, 1578 1658. [ASV] 22 Odoardo Fialetti 1604 1612, p. 18v of the Nomi tratti da altro volume dellArte (1580 1657). As cited in E. Favaro, LArte dei Pittori in Venezia e i suoi Statuti, Firenze 1975, 151. 23 E. Favaro, LArte dei Pittori in Venezia, 147-150.

1620 and 1622.24 Tassini also mentions Fialettis membership in the Scuola, dating it only to 1620.25

For the artist, membership in a Scuola Grande provided not only the benefits of a devotional confraternity,26 but also the opportunity to gain commissions,27 patrons, and collaborators. In Fialettis case, it appears that he may have met both his collaborator Francesco Valegio, and his student Francesco Negri through the Scuola, as both are listed as members. Francesco Valegio (with whom he worked on a great number of prints) is listed much earlier than Fialetti, from 1611, and thus like the records of the Arte dei Pittori, we may be able to extrapolate an earlier date for Fialettis association.28 Francesco Negri, named by De Boni as Fialettis best student29 was also listed as a member of the Scuola, though some years later, in 1626.30 Thus from this documentary evidence, one can deduce that a large proportion of Fialettis working relationships after he separated from the Tintoretto studio, as well as several commissions, were based in his
24

Odoardo Fioletti Pitor. 1620 / 1621. Mariegole, Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro, Scuole Grandi, regg. 3. [ASV] Odoardo Fioletti Pitor. Registro delli Confratelli, Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro, Scuole Grandi, b. 21, 1622. [ASV] 25 Tassinis handwritten reference is slightly ambiguous, as he suggests that Fialetti was deacon of the Scuola (Odoardo Fialetti pittore decono della Scuola...), however this does not appear to be supported in any documents I have been able to find concerning the Chapter Register. G. Tassini, Fialetti, Cittadiini, Biblioteca Correr, Venice. 26 The Scuole Grandi each had their own devotional saints and protectors, special devotional practices, and a mother rule (mariegole) that members followed, the result was, as Pullan describes it, an artificial family, with the titular saint at the head. The scuole varied in prestige and practice, however the basic structure and function were the same. See T. Pignatti, ed., Le Scuole di Venezia, Milan 1981, 14-16. For more information on the benefits of the Scuole Grande to its members, see P. Humfrey, The Altarpiece in Renaissance Venice, New Haven and London 1993, 59-61 27 Pullan briefly discusses the reasons and capacities for the commission of works of art by Scuole in Venice, stating that they took many opportunities to honour their saint... and commissioned paintings as inspiration for their members... representing the life of their saints and celebrating their miracles, heroics, austerity or martyrdom. Ibid. 28 1611 adi po Agosto / A Mr Franco Valezzo. Registro delli Confratelli, Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro, b. 21. [ASV] 29 F. De Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, 356. See No. 5, Appendix I for the transcription. 30 Franco Negri Intagiador [sic] / 1626. Mariegole, Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro, Scuole Grandi, regg. 4. [ASV]

membership of the Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro, and in fact from the confraternity register of 1622, we may also be provided with a date for his creation of one (or potentially both) altarpieces.31

Though he may have had more, there are only two known students associated with Fialetti: Marco Boschini and Francesco Negri32, though it has not been suggested that he operated a large studio. There is very little known about Fialettis family life and status in Venice between his arrival in the Tintoretto studio in the late Cinquecento and his death in c. 1638. Both a letter from Wotton, to Vincenzo I Gonzaga dated 1606,33 and Malvasia suggest that Fialetti was ill in 1605 or 1606, and that he recovered from his illness in the Crociferi, however the nature of the illness and its duration are uncertain (as are its effects on his family). From Malvasias earlier account, we can assume that he was married, with several children (though according to Malvasia, only a son was still living at the time of his written account in 1678, though he had not taken up the profession of painting).34 The exact date of his death is disputed, and dated between 163235 and 1648, though it is usually given as 1637 or 1638. This variation in date may reflect a difference in the traditional calendar and the modo veneto, in which the year starts in March, as this would allow consistency between the accounts, and Malvasias statement that the artist died aged 65. Fialettis death is not recorded in the extant Venetian necrologies; however

31 32

Registro delli Confratelli, Scuola Grande di San Teodoro, b. 21. [ASV] See No. 6, Appendix I. De Boni, in fact states that Fialetti had various students, but names only Negri. F. De Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, 356. 33 For further discussion of the letter, see Chapters II and V, and for a transcription, see No. 4, Appendix V. 34 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 312-313. See No. 7, Appendix I. Fialettis wife name is not known, nor is her date of death. 35 M. Minola de Gallotti, Imagenes de Tintoretto, Goya 169-171, Madrid 1982, 180.

they are incomplete between the years 1638 and 1641.36 There also does not appear an existing will for Odoardo,37 and thus the fate of any artistic or studio property is uncertain.38

Later, Tassini names Fialettis children: a son, Odoardo, and three daughters, Fialetta, Francesca and Elisabetta.39 Odoardos status as a Guardian of the Scuola di SantOrsola in 1672 is also mentioned by Tassini, though he mistakenly attributes it to his father. The younger Odoardos name is listed in a number of positions within the scuola between 5 November 1672 and 1687, though it is likely he was a member in the years before being elected to his position as Guardian.40 In addition to serving as Guardian and Governor, the younger Odoardo, was also one of the Sindici and one of the Twelve (Dodieci). The
36

Necrologi, Provveditori alla Sanit, b. 866 (1635), 867 (1636-37), 868 (1636-1637), 869 (1638), 870 (1641) and 874 (1648). [ASV] V. Maugeri suggests either 1637 or 1638 as his date of death. V. Maugeri, Fialetti, Odoardo, 323. While we can potentially infer his residence in Cannaregio, based on the location of the Tintoretto studio, it was not feasible to consult individual Necrologies in the Archivio Patriarcato, organised by church for the purposes of this thesis. 37 The name Fialetti, or any variation thereof, does not appear in the index of wills (or accompanying notary documents) for the Archivio Notarile, in the Archivio di Stato. While the handwritten files are not necessarily exhaustive, it proved beyond the scope of this study to examine all buste from notaries filing wills during the likely period in which Fialetti died. Additionally, records in the archives of the Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro were examined, and there was no notice of either a date of death, or a copy of his will (as there were with a number of other confraternity members). 38 We can, however look to the wills of other contemporary artists, and their families. In particular, Palma Giovanes will contains explicit instructions concerning the dispersal of his studio property, stating that all his canvases, abozzi, drawings, reliefs, books and other objects pertaining to the profession of painting should go to his grandson if he took up the profession of painting. Testamento e codicillo di Iacopo Palma, Notaio Giulio Ziliolo, Testamenti, Archivio Notarile, b. 1244, no. 255, 1627-1628, 5, lines 40-43. [ASV] For more information on Palmas will, including an early (and incomplete) French translation, see. R. de Mas-Latrie, Testament et Codicille de Jacques Palma le Jeune, Gazette des Beaux Arts XII, 1867, 295-299. It would be likely that Fialetti, with a relatively small studio, would have left any artistic property to his son, however because he did not take up the profession of painting (nor did any later heirs), its fate is uncertain. In addition to a lack of Fialettis will, there is also a distinct lack of wills belonging to either his wife or children. While a wifes will often bequeathed her property to her husband or any siblings (as in the case of the Francescina, the wife of Francesco Valegio), it may also reveal details of the family assets or parish church. Francescina Valegio, Notaio Vincenzo Conti, b. 240, n. 173, 1609. [ASV] 39 G. Tassini, Fialetti. Because we do not know where Fialetti lived, the identity of his parish church is uncertain, and thus finding baptismal records (and death records) for his children has not been possible in this study. 40 For transcriptions of these documents, see No. 8, Appendix I. Libro di Capitoli di S. Orsola and Atti Diverse, Scuola Piccola di S. Orsola, Scuole Piccole e Suffraggi [in S. Gio. Paolo], b. 598-599. [ASV]

documents, while suggesting a man of relative social stature within the scuola, do not hint at his profession, or the familys standing within Venetian society. Fialettis daughter, Fialetta, is mentioned in several eighteenth century sources, though both her year of birth and death are uncertain.41 Flaminio Corner described her tomb in the church of the Gesuati, stating that she was a great servant of God, extolling her admirable and virtuous life.42 The tomb itself [Fig. 1.1], found in a chapel to the left behind the altar, does not bear a date, and repeats the same information given in the written sources: Fialetta Fialetti, Pious and Illustrious Virgin, and the Bones of Sisters Francesca and Elisabetta.43 Though she does not appear to have been beatified or canonised, Fialetta was named venerable in 1717, suggesting her importance within the convent (either as a Mother Superior, or through her piety and actions). Therefore, while Fialettis children did not follow the tradition of painting or printmaking after him, they did achieve relative significance within a variety of social and religious contexts.

It is the aim of this thesis to place Odoardo Fialetti within context, and therefore restore his status, dispelling the incorrect depiction of the artist as solely a copyist, through examination of his paintings, prints, and patronage through the study of early guides and biographies, archival documents, and existing works of art, and copies thereafter. The
41

It may be either that she was the child with which Fialettis wife was pregnant when he died, or she may have died before Malvasias account was written in 1678. 42 F. Corner, Notizie Storiche delle Chiese e Monasteri di Venezia e Torcello, Padua 1758, reprinted Bologna 1990, 444. Corner first gave this description in his Ecclesiae Venetae, Venetiis (Typis Jo: Baptistae Pasquali) 1749, 227. The inscription is not listed in E.A. Cicogna, Delle Iscrizioni Veneziane, 6 vols., Venezia (Presso Giuseppe Picotti Stampatore) 1834. [BL, 10132.l.7] 43 The inscription on the tomb is ambiguous with respect to Francesca and Elisabetta: and it is uncertain whether they were biological sisters (as Tassini implies), or whether they were religious sisters in the convent. It should also be noted as significant that Fialetta, as a religious sister, is buried in a marked tomb so close to the high altar of the church. Despite her apparent status, I have been unable to find any additional information on Fialetta, either through sources pertaining to her position within the Catholic Church, or through modern biographies.

10

body of the thesis is divided into four chapters, dealing with the paintings, prints, anatomical prints and place within the English circles in Venice, respectively.

The discussion of the paintings in Chapter II begins with a brief discussion of the Fialettis drawings and technique before beginning a historiographical examination of the recorded paintings for public buildings.44 Because a large number of paintings were lost after the suppression of the monasteries, the examination of pictures begins with case studies concerning the lost paintings, dividing the studies by type of patronage (private commissions for churches, commissions by scuole or guilds, and private commissions for family homes). A final case study is presented to discuss the potential influence of the Tintoretto workshop on Fialetti, comparing known works from the workshop with descriptions of the lost painting in order to better understand the composition. The chapter then examines the existing Venetian paintings, with reference to style, influence, and their place within the early Seicento. Through all of these studies, I will examine Fialettis place as an artist favouring disegno over colorito within an aesthetic dominated by a Tintorettesque style, and the ramifications for his popularity both with contemporary audiences and later critics.

Chapter III concerns itself with Fialettis printed works, which are his most enduring legacy to the history of art, and is divided into three broad periods of work: the early period (1594 1608), the middle period (1608 1619), and the mature period (1619 1638). The early period works are characterised by their delicacy, fine line and attention
44

All documents (early biographies, accounts from guidebooks, archival sources, etc.) are included in the appendices, which are divided by chapter and notated with the numbers of corresponding footnotes. Additionally, all images are labelled per chapter, and are also found in the appendices.

11

to detail. Included in the early period works are prints after Tintoretto, including the St Sebastian, a number of single prints, and the only book upon which we know Fialetti worked before 1608, Nicoletto Gigantis Scola, Overo, Teatro. The middle period is dominated by an interest in good disegno, and the production of Il vero modo et ordine, the drawing book for which the artist is most famous. Fialetti also created a number of model and pattern books for both amateurs and artists during this period. As he matured as a printmaker, Fialettis sense of line became freer, and his sense of movement within a picture heightened, which is especially evident in the Four Divinities series after Pordenone, and the Scherzi dAmore for Baron Roos. The mature period is characterised by an almost complete lack of single prints, and instead a focus on illustrations for lengthy books on a number of subjects. Of these, Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa and the 1625 edition of Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata are both of particular significance because they were not included in the Illustrated Bartsch, which until this thesis, formed the core of knowledge concerning Fialettis printed works. This chapter also explores Fialettis relationships within the print industry and book trade, examining his contacts with important publishers throughout the city, including the Sadelers, as well as his collaborations with other artists of the period, including Francesco Valegio.

Fialettis anatomical prints for Giulio Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae, later incorporated into Adrian van den Spieghels De humani corporis libri decem of 1627 are discussed separately in Chapter IV, in order to better understand his contribution to the history of anatomy. The chapter begins with a brief examination of the history of the anatomical

12

treatise, and the importance of illustrations in these works, especially the work of Vesalius and the 1543 De humani corporis fabrica. Vesalius Fabrica and its illustrations by van Calcar provide a model with which we can compare Fialettis work for Casseri. Before exploring the works for Casseri, however, I suggest Fialettis collaboration in the 1604 Venetian edition of Vesalius which foreshadows the later illustrations, based both on the quality of figures and the known work of Francesco Valegio on the project. Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae forms the basis for the illustrations included in Spieghels treatise, which was later transferred to Daniel Bucretius before its eventual publication. Fialettis illustrations follow the Vesalian tradition; however, they take on a distinctly Seicento character, and are visually interesting with varied and carefully delineated background detail, and figures in increasingly active postures to better understand the placement and action of anatomical structures. While there is relatively little information on the cost and production of Spieghels anatomy, other Seicento accounts allow comparison. The chapter concludes with discussion of copies after Fialettis plates, in Northern Europe and England, and their varied uses, for students of medicine and anatomy and artists, thus fully exploring the interdisciplinarity of both his work itself and its influence.

Chapter V explores Fialettis impact in England, and his involvement with collecting and connoisseurship circles in Venice during the early Seicento. I begin this aspect of the study with a discussion of the English interest in Venetian art under James I and Charles I, and the burgeoning importance of collecting. Due to the complex nature of relationships between various individuals and circles, the chapter is divided by known

13

patron or association, and then further by work of art. Fialettis first English contact was likely Sir Henry Wotton, who commissioned Four Portraits of Doges, a View of Venice and Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton (which can be related to a number of contemporary paintings, also discussed in this chapter to infer a pictorial tradition with this type of image). Fialettis relationships with Baron Roos, Daniel Nys and the Earl and Countess of Arundel are also explored before a discussion of Fialettis impact on English artists is discussed. Inigo Jones, Sir Anthony van Dyck and Edward Norgate all passed through the circle of the Earl and Countess of Arundel in Venice during the period in which Fialetti was actively promoting his preference of disegno in both painted and printed works. His drawing book, Il vero modo was of particular significance to artists, and similar examples can be found in the sketchbooks of both Inigo Jones and van Dyck may help us to understand Fialettis importance. Additionally, Edward Norgates treatise on limning provides one of the few examples in which a known relationship between Fialetti and another artist is documented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Fialettis importance on later English artists, with particular emphasis on the impact of printed works which were brought back to the continent by early English patrons and connoisseurs. Thus in this way, Odoardo Fialettis importance to the Early Modern aesthetic through his promotion of good disegno as the basis for all art becomes clear, and thus his position, not only as an artist whose style resonated with the tastes of contemporary English patrons, but also with later artists, amateurs and gentlemen scholars who studied drawing, is reassessed.

14

Odoardo Fialetti occupied a very different place historically than the great Venetian painters who preceded him. While the importance of artists such as Titian and Tintoretto is clear, due in part to their large painted oeuvres and stylistic influence after their deaths, the influence of a number of early Seicento artists, including Fialetti, who worked in a variety of media, is less obvious. While the significance may be less obvious, and less vocal, that is not to say that it is not important. When one considers the breadth of Fialettis oeuvre, ranging from paintings for Venetian churches, private patrons and public buildings, to the newly important print (which in itself covers a breadth of subject which is rare in any artists oeuvre), and works for English patrons, this tacit influence gains a sense of tangibility. Fialetti exemplifies the changing role of the artist, the contemporary divide in Venetian painting concerning the importance of disegno and colorito, and the interest placed in the new academic tradition of drawing. The sum total of Fialettis influence, in Italy and England, suggests an artist whose position has been historically misinformed, and who, because of the variety and breadth of his oeuvre and patronage base, deserves a higher status, thus acknowledging his importance both to contemporary Seicento concerns and aesthetics, and to his later influence on the tradition of disegno in both the painted and printed media.

15

Chapter II: Fialettis Paintings

1. Introduction Odoardo Fialettis painted works form an important part of his career. They are listed by a number of early biographers, and noted in guides to Venice and Venetian art, such as Martinionis edition of Sansovinos Citt Noblissima and Boschinis Ricche Minere and La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco. They are mentioned more frequently than his prints, despite the fact that the number of known prints (estimated between 425 and 450) is ten times the number of potential paintings, of which less than 50 are recorded. Of these 50 paintings, here catalogued in Appendix VI, fewer than ten have survived and are concretely attributed to the artist. While Fialetti is always described as a great draughtsman, he is never described as a great painter. These disparate accounts highlight his paintings, but praise his disegno, and rarely note his contribution to the history of the print. The very fact that he seems to have shifted his career almost exclusively to prints in later life suggests that he was aware of his superior skill in that medium as opposed to painting. It also suggests a subtle shift in his interests from a type of art which could combine both disegno and colorito (which is often regarded as an aspect of painting in which the Venetians excelled), to one which was based solely on disegno.1 Fialettis paintings had a more restricted subject matter than his printed work, and were primarily for churches in Venice, with a smaller number for private patrons. The paintings themselves are original in terms of their composition, colour and melange of visual influences, and are stylistically distinct from those which were being produced in the
1

Though whether this shift was a conscious move away from colorito or not is uncertain. It must also be noted that because we cannot concretely trace Fialettis activity in central Italy before settling in Venice, it is uncertain as to whether he is using disegno as an expression of an idea, as explored in Vasaris Lives, in addition to the more obvious applications of the term to his use of line and preparatory drawing.

16

Tintoretto workshop of the period. Before addressing the paintings, this chapter will look at Fialettis extant drawings, and thus his technique as a basis for his painted oeuvre. Secondly, this chapter will utilise a historiographical approach to examine the accounts of Fialettis paintings as given in biographies and guides to Venice through the early twentieth century in an effort to reconstruct his painted oeuvre. Also to be investigated is the fate of the comparatively large number of paintings that disappeared after the suppression of the monasteries in the early nineteenth century. Three case studies will be utilised in this instance, as a way of exploring the implications of Fialettis patronage, subject matter (and its relation to known works from the Tintoretto workshop), and archival presence of these paintings after the suppression. Finally, this chapter will provide an analysis of the extant Venetian pictures, in order to better understand Fialettis style, and his place as an artist in the early Seicento.

2. Fialettis Drawings Fialettis draughtsmanship was extolled from his earliest biographies, including Masini who said that the artist was reputed to be the best draughtsman in the world.2 While we can extrapolate a great deal of information concerning the quality of his drawings from the printed oeuvre, it is imperative to examine those few extant drawings attributed to Fialetti for both their technique and similarity to his known or historically attributed works.3 The five known drawings which are traditionally given to Fialetti are divided
2

A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, Bologna (Per lErede di Vittorio Benacci) 1666, 635. [BL, Rare Books, 660.a.6] It is also significant that Fialettis drawing differs significantly from Tintorettos, and it is therefore likely that Fialettis interpretation of Tintorettos instructions as recorded by Ridolfi to draw and draw again, differed significantly from the intended meaning of the master. 3 Because of the relative rarity of known Fialetti drawings, and their lack of correspondence with known works, it is impossible to offer accurate hypotheses concerning dates. The lack of concretely attributed drawings is likely due to lack of consistent signature or monogram, as well as attesting to their relative

17

between three collections, the Nationalmuseum of Sweden, the Muse National du Louvre, and the Graphische Sammlung in Munich.4

The two drawings in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm are of diverse subjects, the first of David Gives Thanks to God for the Victory over Goliath and Two studies of figures (on the recto and verso respectively), and the second of Arion.5 The first drawing, David Gives Thanks to God [Fig 2.1] was traditionally attributed to Palma, however this was reconsidered in the light of its similarity to the Munich drawing.6 If one compares this work to other drawings by Palma, including his Dead Christ [Fig. 2.2]7 the dissimilarity is clear, and the Fialetti drawing shows a much more innate grasp of the human figure in the slain Goliath.8 The two studies on the verso9 also concentrate on the form of the figures, one of which appears to be either a Christ figure being nailed to the cross, or the martyrdom of a saint (perhaps Saint Lawrence based on Titians composition). In addition to comparing Fialettis drawings to those of Palma, one can also look to both
delicacy compared to paintings or prints. However, I do not feel this is a significant hindrance in attempting to partially characterise his drawings, as all extant works are stylistically similar and relate to his more well-known print style. 4 Because of an unavailability of reproductions of this drawing, and its lack of discussion in other sources, the validity of its attribution to Fialetti is uncertain, and it will not be discussed in this chapter. 5 These drawings are listed in P. Bjurstrm, Drawings in Swedish Public Collections, 3, Italian Drawings: Venice, Brescia, Parma, Milan and Genoa, Stockhold 1979, catalogue nos. 65 and 66. For more information on similar drawings and their attribution, see H. Tietze, Unknown Venetian Renaissance Drawings in Swedish Collections, Gazette des Beaux Arts XXXV, 1949, 177-186. 6 O. Fialetti, David Gives Thanks to God for the Victory over Goliath. Pen and brown ink and grey wash on brown paper (recto), 137x200mm. [NMS 1483/1863]. P. Bjurstrm, Drawings in Swedish Public Collections, cat. no. 65. 7 Palma il Giovane, The Dead Christ. Black chalk, heightened with white on grey-green paper, 298x172mm. [BM, Italian Unmounted Roy, Ff,1.71] 8 For further reading on Palmas drawings, see: W. Ames, Two Drawings by Palma Giovane, Gazette des Beaux Arts XLV, 1955, 171-174; L. Grassi, Note Sulla Grafica di Palma il Giovane, Arte Veneta XXXII, 1978, 262-271; S.M. Rinaldi, Palma il Giovane: 1548 1628, Disegni e Dipinti, exh. cat., Museo Correr, Venice, 20/1/90 29/4/90, Milan 1990; D. Rosand, Palma il Giovane as Draughtsman: The Early Career and Related Observations, Master Drawings 8, 1970, 148-161 + 210-223; J.B. Shaw, A Pocket Sketchbook by Palma Giovane, Arte Veneta XXXII, 1978, 275-280. 9 O. Fialetti, Two studies of figures. Pen and brown ink on brown paper (verso), 137x200mm. [NMS 1483/1863]

18

Jacopo and Domenico Tintorettos drawings. In particular, if one looks at Jacopos Study of a Standing Figure [Fig. 2.3]10 the differences are immediately obvious: while Tintoretto often squares his compositions, we have no evidence from Fialettis drawings that he engaged in the practice (though it was probably suggested in the studio). Also, there is a difference between the anatomical shorthand by the master, who suggests an artistic programme of muscles separate from their reality, and that by Fialetti, the musculature of whose figures is based solidly in correct anatomy. Domenico Tintorettos drawings are similar in the clarity of the outline of Fialettis figures, for instance the Male Nude,11 but like his father, the reliance on anatomical shorthand creates a figure based more in artistic fantasy than anatomical reality. The lack of visible re-working of Domenicos figure also creates a more static composition than both Fialettis and Jacopos.

The second drawing in the Nationalmuseum is a chalk study of Arion12 [Fig. 2.4] which is traditionally attributed to the artist based on the black chalk inscription in the lower right corner of the drawing.13 While the subject matter of the drawing is very close to that of the Tritons and Nereids series of prints from 1610, however the figural type is much

10

J. Tintoretto, Study of a Standing Figure. Charcoal on paper, 262x140mm. [BM, Italian Roy XVIc, 1913,0331.198] For more information on contemporary drawings by Tintoretto and others, see: F. Pellegrini, ed., Da Tintoretto a Bison: Disegni del Museo dArte Secoli XVI XVIII, exh. cat., 20/2/2005 24/4/2005, Musei Civici agli Eremitani, Padua 2005; F. Zeri, Anatomia di uno Jacopo Tintoretto Giovanile, Arte Veneta XXXVI, 1982, 127-130. M. Falomir points out that anatomy was not Tintorettos goal. [...]His figures are developed through a process of interaction between observation of the human form in nature and contemplation of the ideal... M. Falomir, Tintoretto, exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid 2007, 28. 11 D. Tintoretto, Nudo Virile. Black chalk on grey paper, 317x176mm. Musei Civici, Padua. As cited in F. Pellegrini, ed., Da Tintoretto a Bison, 62-63. 12 O. Fialetti, Arion. Red chalk, 131x175mm. [NMS, 55/1973] P. Bjurstrm, Drawings in Swedish Public Collections, cat. no. 66. 13 The inscription reads odoardo Fialetti.

19

sweeter than the printed versions, and is reminiscent of Raphaels Galatea14 and contemporary studies by the Carracci.15 The drawing itself is unremarkable in terms of subject or composition, however it is the only chalk drawing attributed to the artist, which suggests he may have preferred to work in pen and ink. Fialetti also uses chalk as if it were a pen, creating an outline of the figures, and using only minimal shading and smudging to create depth.16

The final two drawings to be discussed are in the Louvre, and differ greatly from those in Sweden. Both the Christ before Pilate and The Israelites Carrying the Ark of the Covenant, Singing the Praises of God are highly worked sketches, as opposed to rapid studies, and offer insight into his working practice.17 While the Christ before Pilate [Fig 2.5] is a relatively complete composition, there is evidence of both underdrawing in black chalk18 and re-working of several areas.19 In addition to the use of both chalk and pen, one can clearly see the emphasis on movement, especially in the drapery. Instead of

14

Given Fialettis recorded trip to Rome (as recounted in Malvasia), it could be that this was influenced directly by that work and may date to an early period in his career. 15 See D.d.G. Bohlin, Prints and Related Drawings by the Carracci Family: A Catalogue Raisonn, exh. cat., National Gallery of Art 18/3/1979 20/5/1979, Washington 1979. B. Bohn, Malvasia and the Study of Carracci Drawings, Master Drawings 30, 1992, 396-414. 16 Again it must be noted that there is a great contrast between this and the chalk drawings of his contemporaries, including Annibale Carracci, who can be seen to exploit the material to create an almost sculptural figure. 17 O. Fialetti, Christ Devant Pilate. Pen and brown ink, 248x96mm. [LVR, Dpartement des Arts Graphiques, Inv. 8247, recto] O. Fialetti, Les Isralites Portant lArch en Chantant les Louanges Dieu. Pen and brown ink, 247x100mm. [LVR, Dpartement des Arts Graphiques, Inv. 8247 bis, recto] Both of these drawings are mounted, and thus it is impossible to tell whether the paper used has a watermark. Both drawings were previously in the collection of the dEste family, and were seized from the holdings of Ercole dEste in 1796. 18 The columns at the right and the arch still have black chalk marks following the pen, suggesting he sketched it first and then completed the image in ink. The foot of the second scribe is also incomplete, as that of one of the soldiers on the left. I must thank F. Lang for her observations concerning the incomplete areas of the composition. 19 The lines used to delineate the stairs, and the spears behind Christ appear incised into the paper, though there do not appear to be traces of pen left on the paper.

20

focusing on texture and weight, he merely suggests it with his economical use of line.20 The subject of the drawing matches only one known work by Fialetti, the supposed Christ before Pilate for the church of SantAgnese in Venice.21 There is also a passing resemblance between this drawing and several figural groups in Tintorettos painting in the Scuola Grande di San Rocco. However, irregularities in the figure of Pilate (who wears a turban) suggest that Fialetti may have begun a drawing and changed subject at some point during its early execution.22 The arrangement of spears in this work is similar to illustrations in the 1625 Sarzina edition of Gerusalemme Liberata23 and therefore I suggest that this may be a demonstration of Fialettis re-use of ideas in action (that is, using similar arrangements of figures between this composition and the later Gerusalemme Liberata). Additionally, one must consider whether the title of this work is correct given Pilates costume: either Fialetti has given the figure an eastern costume (which could alternately be compared to a High Priests costume) for reasons of visual interest, or perhaps he intended it to be rather a picture of Christ before Caiaphus, given in particular, the similarities between the headdress in this drawing and Elijahs headdress in the Allegory with Religious and Other Symbols.

The second Louvre drawing, The Israelites Carrying the Ark of the Covenant, Singing the Praises of God [Fig 2.6] does not correspond with any known work. The procession fills the plane of the drawing, winding around rocky outcrops from the background toward

20 21

Also of note is the lack of cross-hatching. A comparison of the painting of the same name is impossible because it was lost after the redecoration of the church. 22 I hypothesise that the change was made at an early stage because there appears to be very little underdrawing beneath Christs halo. 23 For a full discussion of Fialettis contribution to this work, see Chapter III.

21

musicians at the forefront, with the Ark of the Covenant in the mid-ground. The figures are dressed in contemporary costume (and carrying a number of contemporary musical instruments, the lute in particular), and if it were not for the presence of the Ark, it would not be recognisable as an Old Testament scene. The background detailing is entirely consistent with Fialettis oeuvre, as are the figural types, and thus it seems that the attribution to the artist is sound. Additionally, his emphasis on the knees of the figures in the foreground betrays his interest in both anatomy and the studies in his own drawing book, Il vero modo.24 Like the previous drawing, the complexity of the composition and its high degree of finish reveal a great deal about Fialettis technique. In particular, in a number of the parallel lines, one can see an excess of ink at the base of the pen stroke, which suggests that he began the stroke at the bottom and pulled the pen up.25 This drawing places more emphasis on texture, especially in the clothing of the youngest musician in the foreground.

In summary, these four drawings, while diverse in terms of subject matter and state of completion, reveal much information concerning Fialettis working practice. They suggest that unlike some artists who drew directly onto the canvas, Fialetti may have continued to create increasingly detailed sketches throughout the compositional process, and is also consistent with his interest in engraving and etching (the emphasis of disegno

24

In the exposed legs of several figures, there is a complete lack of the anatomical shorthand favoured by Tintoretto and Palma il Giovane, and the muscles are instead clearly and economically delineated. This is one of the primary characteristics of Fialettis work. There is a drawing of The Martyrdom of St Sebastian [Fig. 2.7] in the British Museum which contained a previous attribution to Fialetti, but which was more correctly given to the circle of Luca Cambiaso. Though it bears a similar interest in architectural details as the Christ devant Pilate, the anatomy lacks the accuracy one expects from Fialetti. Circle of Luca Cambiaso, The Martyrdom of St Sebastian, c. 1542-1585. Pen and brown ink, 408x182mm. [BM, Italian Unmounted Roy, A,17.36] 25 As opposed to starting at the top, or connecting parallel lines with small curves.

22

over colorito as expressed here by the importance he places on the line rather than the shading or washes that would translate in paintings as colour).

3. A Historiographical Examination of Early Printed Sources Fialettis presence in the early printed tradition of guides to Venice and artists biographies suggest that his esteem as a both a painter and a printmaker was recognised by Seicento and Settecento authors and audiences.26 Furthermore, until the twentieth century, it was his paintings which garnered the lengthiest description and greatest praise, with his printed works often mentioned briefly. The Seicento and Settecento accounts vary in length, detail and substance, leading to a discussion of their relative accuracy and trustworthiness. The nineteenth century accounts are short and based in the translation of earlier sources, including Lanzi and Gori Gandellini. The shift in these accounts and the reception of Fialettis paintings occurs at the end of the Ottocento, marking a decreasing reliance on earlier guides and a move toward personal observation and archival research.27

The earliest mention of Fialettis paintings comes from his pupil Marco Boschini, in his La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco of 1660.28 Because of their close working relationship, it is safe to assume that Boschini would have been familiar with Fialettis oeuvre, and thus we can infer more from his descriptions than those of authors who were far removed, either geographically or chronologically. Unlike his later Ricche Minere della Pittura

26

For full text of the early biographies and guides discussed in this chapter from the Seicento through the Ottocento, see Appendix II, where they are organised chronologically. 27 J.Schlosser Magnino, La letturatura artistica, reprint Florence 1996. 28 M. Boschini, La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco, Venetia (Per li Babi) 1660, Reprinted 1966.

23

Veneziana of 1674, this account of Fialettis paintings is much shorter, describing only two works, and focusing more on the characteristics of his art and his printed works.29 Fialetti is described as being Venetian by his genius.30 The first of the works mentioned is the ceiling of the church of San Domenico, which he describes as corresponding in virtue to the site; and the second is described as a San Rocco for the church of San Canziano.31 Boschini continues, describing the plague saint as a nude of such great quality,32 and follows this with the most detailed description of Fialettis painting style, calling it: well coloured, lively, proud and strong, well drawn, of an exquisite form, all substance, all true to life.33 Whether or not Boschini wrote this praise as a response to the painting of San Rocco is uncertain, but it seems likely given the content, especially given the later lines on the way in which his corpses were more animated than the living.34

The second mention of Fialettis paintings occurred less than thirty years after his death in Giustiniano Martinionis edition of Sansovinos Venetia: Citt Noblissima.35 Unlike later biographers, like Malvasia (whose account tallies just under 40 works), Martinioni mentioned only one painting by the artist (though he mentions most of the churches named by later authors to contain works by Fialetti) in the convent of Santa Croce.36 He
29

This focus on the printed works is logical in the context of the relationship between Fialetti and Boschini. Fialetti taught Boschini the art of engraving. 30 M. Boschini, La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco, 502. 31 Ibid. A later note suggests that the painting depicts San Rocco healing the sick. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 If this had been simply a general discussion of his style, it seems unlikely that Boschini would have mentioned Fialettis use of colour, given his preference for the printed medium. M. Boschini, La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco, 503. 35 G. Martinioni and F. Sansovino, Venetia: Citt Noblissima, Venetia (Stefano Curti) 1663. Facsimile Reprint. 36 The identification of the church is unclear here, but later accounts suggest it was the Chiesa della Croce, in Santa Croce.

24

states that there were two large paintings in the main chancel, including a Crucifixion by Fialetti.37 His only other mention of the artist is in the context of his print after Tintorettos Wedding at Cana.38 Also of note is the fact that he does not describe any anonymous paintings which could be matched with Malvasias or Boschinis later attributions. These two accounts, however cursory, match and are not direct quotations (as with the text of a large proportion of later sources), therefore giving credence to both.

Antonio di Paolo Masinis Bologna Perlustrata of 1666 acts as a whos who of Bolognese painters, sculptors, architects and citizens. Fialetti is discussed only briefly, and none of his paintings are mentioned by name or location, however, Masini does, however, state that the artist created many painted works for many Churches, Palaces and other locations in Venice.39 Masinis biography is unique in that it is not related to any of the other biographies of the period, and also in that it suggests Fialetti was actively painting private commissions, a fact omitted from the majority of later accounts of the artists work.

The first substantive account of Fialettis paintings comes from Boschinis Ricche Minere della Pittura Veneziana.40 In this work, Boschini notes at least 26 paintings41 for fifteen

37 38

G. Martinioni and F. Sansovino, Venetia: Citt Noblissima, 201. G. Martinioni and F. Sansovino, Venetia: Citt Noblissima, 170. 39 A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, 635-636. This account is reproduced in Appendix I. 40 M. Boschini, Le Ricche Minere della Pittura Veneziana... Non solo delle Pitture pubbliche di Venezia: ma dellIsole ancora circonuicine, Venezia (Appresso Francesco Nicolini) 1674. There was an earlier edition, the Minere della Pittura Veneziana of 1664, however this study will use the 1674 edition. See J.Schlosser Magnino, La letturatura artistica, 548. The Ricche Minere was copied by A.M. Zanetti in his Descrizione di tutte le pubbliche pitture della Citt di Venezia of 1733. Unless otherwise stated, the information from the Ricche Minere is taken from this later edited version. A.M. Zanetti, Descrizione di tutte le pubbliche pitture della Citt di Venezia e Isola circonvicine, Venezia (Pietro Bassaglia) 1733. [BNM, 123.D.203]. For ease of reference, it will be referred to as the Ricche Minere. This work by Zanetti

25

churches and one scuola. This account informs the majority of his letter to Malvasia, included Fialettis biography in the Felsina Pittrice, but varies from that of Zanetti, suggesting the later author did not just copy Boschini in his own writings, despite offering a reprint of his work in 1733.42 Boschinis descriptions of Fialettis work vary considerably in length, from cases where the paintings are not described at all (for example the two paintings for Santa Trinit),43 to highly detailed records, such as that for Santi Giovanni e Paolo,
44

perhaps indicating the significance of certain pictures in

Fialettis oeuvre.45 Boschinis account is also significant in that he gives his opinions on several works, which are subsequently repeated by later biographers and critics. While early commentary and critique are generally useful in estimating the reception of both an artist and his paintings, Boschini, as a pupil of Fialetti, may have a slightly broader exposure to the corpus of Fialettis works, and thus be able to rank their merits accordingly. Furthermore, these commentaries on particular works by Boschini may reflect Fialettis own views on his paintings.

While the work of Boschini can be noted as the first accurate account that is not to say that it is without mistake or fault. The nature of these guides led to their dispersal through later (and often annotated or embellished) editions and copied text in the work of other
should not be confused with his Della Pittura Veneziana, e delle Opere Pubbliche de Veneziani Maestri of 1771, which will also be discussed in this chapter. 41 The exact number is uncertain because he lists the ceiling of San Domenico as one work, despite the fact that later accounts state it was comprised of a number of separate compartments. 42 For a chart comparing the accounts of Sansovino (1663), Boschinis Ricche Minere (1674), Malvasia (1678) and Zanettis Della pittura Veneziana (1771) organised by location, see the final section of Appendix II. Additionally, each printed source is listed alongside its relevant entry in the Catalogue of Paintings, with relevant annotations and clarification. 43 A.M. Zanetti and M. Boschini, Ricche Minere, 230. 44 A.M. Zanetti and M. Boschini, Ricche Minere, 244. 45 It should also be noted that this roughly corresponds to the works which still exist, thus suggesting that they were among his best, and therefore likely to be retained by churches or scuole despite redecoration.

26

authors. Therefore the propagation of errors by later authors was rampant by the Settecento. Several early mistakes and discrepancies in Boschini highlight this phenomenon and illustrate difficulties with the reconstruction of an oeuvre based on early printed sources. The case of the painting for the Crociferi, Belshazzar profaning the sacred vessels,46 illustrates this difficulty: mistakes, here, the patronage of a painting, the Gesuiti versus the earlier Crociferi,47 can be very easily propagated, and may never be corrected by subsequent authors, based on the availability of the work, and the ease of which they can obtain information.48

Carlo Cesare Malvasias biography of Odoardo Fialetti in his Felsina Pittrice of 167849 remains the longest and most complete account of the artists life and paintings. In addition to reproducing the text on Fialetti from both Boschinis La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco and G.C. Giglis La Pittura Trionfante, he includes a short biography and a letter from Boschini which enumerates the paintings done by the artist in Venice. In a majority of cases, it appears that the paintings listed are the same between the accounts, though in this later version the descriptions are often embellished,50 giving a clearer indication of the subject or location. The number of pictures listed by Malvasia is

46

A.M. Zanetti and M. Boschini, Ricche Minere, 385. It should also be noted that this painting was not in fact for the church, but rather for the refectory, as Boschini later notes in the letter included in Malvasias biography. 47 The Jesuits did not return to Venice until after Fialettis death, at which time they took over the church of the Crociferi. 48 In this case, the mistake was not rectified until G. Gori Gandellinis 1771, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori. 49 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice. Vita de pittori Bolognesi, 2 vol., Bologna (Per lErede di Domenico Barbieri) 1678. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3] 50 As with the churches of San Domenico and Santi Giovanni e Paolo, and the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro. The subjects for the paintings of the church of Santa Ternit, SantAngelo, the Chiesa della Croce and San Giuliano are clarified.

27

greater,51 and it is uncertain whether these additions were contributed by the author or Boschini. Malvasias biographical information recalls the style of earlier biographers, including Giorgio Vasari, and the degree of veracity (concerning those additional details not included in Boschinis letter) cannot be gauged without supporting archival documentation.

The Settecento also saw a number of accounts of Fialettis works, though often with fewer entries than those listed by Boschini and Malvasia, suggesting that less than 100 years after their completion, some of the works described may have been replaced. Fialettis paintings are mentioned in passing in P.A. Orlandis Labecedario pittorico of 1731.52 Orlandis biographies are often brief, and instead of mentioning each of the paintings (or in fact any of the paintings) by name and location, he states that Boschini listed 38 public paintings in the Churches...53

The most complete of the Settecento accounts is that by Zanetti, who in addition to republishing Boschinis Ricche Minere, wrote his own guide concerning paintings in Venice, or by Venetians, Della Pittura Veneziana of 1771.54 His accounts, though often in agreement with earlier authors, are not direct quotations, and thus it appears that he made his own observations and records. This will prove particularly interesting in the
51

Descriptions are added for paintings in the Magistrati sopra le Volte Rialto, the church of San Nicol de Frari (della Latuca), and Santa Maddelena. 52 P.A. Orlandi, Labecedario pittorico dallautore. Ristampato, Corretto, ed Accresciuto di Molti Professori, Firenze (Per Giorgio Ubaldi) 1731. [NLS, NRR, SBA.539]. 53 P.A. Orlandi, Labecedario pittorico, 343. It is also worth mentioning that he references Malvasia at the end of the short biography, suggesting he was familiar with earlier authors writing biographies and guides. 54 A.M. Zanetti, Della Pittura Veneziana e delle Opere Pubbliche de Veneziani Maestri, Libri V, Venezia 1771. Facsimile reprint Venice 1972. In addition to listing the paintings by each artist, Zanetti lists important prints. In the case of Fialetti, he named two prints, both after Tintoretto, the St Sebastian and The Wedding at Cana, pp. 542-543.

28

case of paintings which are not listed, as this suggests that they may have been misattributed by Boschini or Malvasia, left unsigned (and potentially unrecognisable as being by Fialetti, given his relatively minor stature),55 or already replaced. Zanetti writes in a style similar to Boschini and instead of dividing works by church, divides the book by artist, and characterises Fialetti as making careful studies, but not equalling the genius or vivacity of Tintoretto.56 Of the seventeen churches and buildings listed in Seicento accounts, Zanetti only names works in seven. While we may expect a growing degree of inaccuracy in these guides as they are removed from the date the works were painted, Zanettis guide echoes the descriptions of earlier authors in all but two instances, Santi Marco ed Andrea on Murano and the Chiesa della Croce. The entry for Santi Marco ed Andrea is the most interesting: in addition to agreeing with the attribution of a Abandonment of a City Siege by a Miracle of St Mark (which is named by both Boschini and Malvasia), he states that the second painting is not of the Martyrdom of St Andrew, but rather the Angel St Michael vanquishing the seven deadly sins.57 It is also worth noting that he names these two works as being among Fialettis best.

There are two additional Settecento mentions of Fialettis work, though neither is specifically a guide to Venice. The first is a biography of Fialetti in Giovanni Gori Gandellinis Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori,58 which though it logically focuses on his printed oeuvre, mentions one painting.
55

Zanetti states that the pictures he names are the most beautiful and largest works. A.M. Zanetti, Della Pittura Veneziana, 502. This also indicates that perhaps the works that are not listed in this volume were considered less important, perhaps because of their smaller size or quality. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, Tomo 1, Siena (Presso Vincenso Pazzini Carli e Figli) 1771, 20-21. [BL, Rare Books, 277.e.6]

29

...represented then above the door of that Refectory is the Feast of Belshazzar, in which he profaned the Sacred Vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem; this painting is placed opposite the most famous painting of the Wedding at Cana in Galilea by Tintoretto.59 This particular discussion of the Feast of Belshazzar is the most complete of any of the accounts, and is the earliest to mention its placement opposite Tintorettos Wedding at Cana, implicitly suggesting that Fialetti painted it as a visual and religious counterpart for his masters work. The final account of the Settecento, Lanzis Storia Pittorica della Italia: dal Risorgimento delle Belle Arti fin Presso al Fine del XVIII Secolo60 was published first in 1789, and then issued repeatedly in new editions through the first half of the nineteenth century.61 Unlike Venetian guides, its comprehensive approach to addressing painting in all of Italy leads naturally to a shorter description of each artist. Fialetti is mentioned in the context of Tintoretto, rather than with the other Seicento painters, and in addition to a brief description of his style and mastery of disegno, the only painting named is the Crucifixion for the Chiesa della Croce.62

Discussion of Fialettis paintings for churches outside Venice is rare, and one of the few accounts describing a work for a parish church in Noale is found in a document transcribed in D.M. Federicis Memorie Trevigiane of 1803.63 Federici describes the work as St John the Evangelist, painted in the style of the Carracci informed by that of
59 60

G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, 20. L. Lanzi, Storia Pittorica della Italia: Dal Risorgimento delle Belle Arti fin Presso al Fine del XVIII Secolo, M. Capucci, ed., Florence 1968. This text reproduces that found in the 1809 edition from Bassano (as evidenced by the dedication dated 10 febbraio 1808), which marks the third printing of the text. 61 J.Schlosser Magnino, La letteratura artistica, 510. Later editions were published in English. See L. Lanzi, The History of painting in Italy from the period of the revival of the fine arts to the end of the 18th century, 3 vol., London 1847. [NLS, GRR, AB.1.75.104] 62 L. Lanzi, Storia Pittorica della Italia, vol. 2 (Tomo III in the original), 92. 63 D.M. Federici, Memorie Trevigiane dulle Opere di Disegno dal Mille e cento al mille ottocento, per servire alla Storia delle Belle Arti dItalia, 2 vol., Venezia (Presso Francesco Andreola) 1803. [BL, 786.g.7-8]

30

Tintoretto.64 This characterisation of the style is unique, and suggests that he was much more influenced by his early training under Cremonini than previously assumed. Additionally, this is the earliest written commentary that includes both a date for the work, and documentation to support its attribution to Fialetti.65

These entries mark the last detailed discussion of Fialettis Venetian paintings for almost 200 years: and it is at the end of the eighteenth century, concurrent with the suppression of the monasteries in Venice that his name disappears from view in conjunction with his painted works. The nineteenth century accounts borrow almost solely from earlier biographies, most notably Boschini. At least three nineteenth century accounts mention Fialetti: Filippo De Bonis Biografia degli Artisti of 1840,66 M. Farquhars Biographical catalogue of the principal Italian painters of 1855,67 and Vincenzo Zanettis Guida di Murano of 1866.68 The first two accounts borrow from earlier Italian guides (De Boni, for example, names Gori Gandellini)69, and their cursory nature exemplifies the difference in scope of the text, a historical account versus a biographical one. Furthermore, they illustrate the shift in focus from the biographical sources based in the tradition of Vasari and guidebooks, and thus away from the anecdotes that characterised them, to a more distilled version of the history of art, with a primary emphasis on the
64 65

D.M. Federici, Memorie Trevigiane, 54. Particola del Testamento di Pr Giovanni Locadello Pievano della Parrochilae de SS. Felice e Fortunato di Noale. D.M. Federici, Memorie Trevigiane, 82. 66 F. De Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, volume unico, Venezia (co Tipi del Gondoliere) 1840, 356. [BL, Rare Books, 1402.k.5] 67 M. Farquhar, Biographical catalogue of the principal Italian painters, London (John Murray) 1855, 60. Digitised by Google Books. 68 V. Zanetti, Guida di Murano, Venezia (Stabilimento Tipografico Antonelli) 1866, 118 and 175. [BL, Rare Books, X.808/816] This account is unique in that it is specific to Murano, and though its structure is similar to the earlier accounts, its substance appears to be based in the personal observation of the author. Furthermore this work demonstrates the shift from a text-based account to one based in research. 69 This is evident in the entry for Bartolommeo Fialetti: ... ricordato dal Gandellini... F. De Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, 357.

31

important pictures. Therefore while in works such as Boschini and Malvasia, Fialetti held a role of relative prominence based on the number of works attributed to him, his status diminished in relation to either their disappearance over time, or their perceived quality.

Fialettis name fades into relative obscurity during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and his only mention is often in conjunction with his printed works. He is almost completely omitted from biographical accounts of artists and only reappears in late 20th century guides to churches and buildings in Venice in which his works are still extant. Of these, there are several general guides,70 including Lorenzettis Venice and its lagoon,71 and two site-specific guides, for Santi Giovanni e Paolo,72 and the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro.73 Fialettis shift in stature at the end of the Settecento has a direct effect on these accounts, and his relative obscurity in the modern era. While modern guides and biographies do use the early printed sources, they do not discuss their relative merits, nor do they compare the consistency of authors over three centuries. Additionally, no modern biography has attempted a reconstruction of Fialettis painted oeuvre.

Thus from this examination, one can surmise that Fialettis painted oeuvre for churches in Venice (and in one case, Noale) comprises around 39 works, though the accounts detailing their subject matter and placement vary. Using these sources as a basis for a
70

See also A. Zorzi, Venezia Scomparsa, Milan 1984. Because Zorzi utilises a similar historiographical approach in his treatment of paintings for Venetian churches, this work will not be discussed in this section. However, it will be used in the individual discussions of churches that follow, and in the catalogue of paintings. 71 G. Lorenzetti, Venice and its lagoon, trans. by J. Guthrie, Trieste 1982. 72 F. Zava Boccazzi, La Basilica dei Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venezia, Venice 1965. 73 G. Scattolin, La Scuola Grande di S. Teodoro in Venezia, Venice 1961.

32

reconstructed oeuvre, we can then examine archival documents and extant paintings for the churches in Venice to try to ascertain their reliability. The paintings are divided into two categories, lost and extant, to be discussed separately in this chapter. The lost paintings, from demolished, destroyed or redecorated churches, are discussed individually in the Catalogue of Paintings in the Appendix, while case studies pertaining Fialettis style, influence, patronage and the archival presence of his works (and their comparison to these early printed sources) will be used in this chapter to better understand the impact of his painted oeuvre. The extant paintings will then be discussed,74 in reference to style, technique and place within the Seicento artistic climate.

4. The Lost Paintings The suppression of the monasteries at the end of the Settecento irrevocably changed the Venetian ecclesiastical climate: the first decree of 1768 suggested a 45% reduction in the numbers of religious men and women in Venice,75 and was followed by the closures of both parish churches and monasteries. The suppression of 1806 affected three churches for which Fialetti supposedly completed paintings: S. Domenico, Santa Maria Maddelena and SS. Marco ed Andrea (of Murano), and with the exception of la Maddelena, these monasteries were eventually destroyed.76 The churches of Santi Filippo e Giacomo, the Chiese della Ternit and della Croce, SantAngelo and San Salvatore followed. Of the demolished churches, only one was destroyed before the suppression; the interior of San
74

Extant pictures are also listed in the Catalogue of Paintings, with supplementary information beyond the primary discussion of this chapter. 75 B. Bertoli, La Soppressione di Monasteri e Conventi a Venezia dal 1797 al 1810, Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, Biblioteca dell Archivio Veneto, vol. XL, Venice 2002, 5. 76 B. Bertoli, La Soppressione di Monasteri e Conventi, 87-88. The demolished churches are (for the purposes of this study): San Domenico, SS. Filippo e Giacomo, the Chiesa della Ternit, SantAngelo, the Chiesa della Croce, SS. Marco ed Andrea, and San Salvatore (both of Murano).

33

Nicol della Lattuga was lost in a fire in 1743.77 The interior decoration of a church was also often changed to accommodate newly dedicated altars and changing tastes. The redecorated churches78 are primarily parish churches (with several key exceptions) which escaped demolition after the suppression and still stand, though not all remain active churches. The decommissioning and/or redecoration of these buildings took places at various stages in their history, from the mid-Seicento through to the present day, and thus, unlike the demolished churches (whose histories end in the early 19th century), these buildings can often be traced further toward the present, offering additional information about their early Seicento decoration. In a large number of cases, the artworks are often un-traceable after their removal from the church, due either to their insignificance (or unpopularity as informed by later artistic tastes) or their anonymity.79

In addition to the lost paintings for Venetian churches, there are also several lost paintings for public buildings, the Magistrati sopra le Volte Rialto and the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro, and private patrons, most notably the Correggio family and their house in the city. From these accounts, three primary examples will be utilised to discuss the variety and importance of his patronage: San Nicol della Lattuga, San Canziano, the and the Casa Correggio, and the decorative programme of individual churches, as discussed in reference to the Crociferi.

77

F. Corner, Notizie Storiche delle Chiese e Monasteri di Venezia e di Torcello, Padova 1758, Reprint Bologna 1990, 368. 78 La Maddelena, San Canziano, Santa Marta, SantAgnese, the Gesuiti/Crociferi and the Riformati. The Crociferi marks a unique case, and will be discussed further in this chapter. Unlike the other redecorated churches it was previously taken over by another religious order, the Jesuits, before the suppression. 79 There is no indication in a majority of early sources (both archival and printed) as to whether these works were signed.

34

4.1. San Nicol della Lattuga A Private Commission for a Venetian Church The church of San Nicol de Frari (or della Lattuga) underwent extensive restoration in 1582, and by the beginning of the Seicento, had works by Titian, Veronese, Palma, and others, including Fialetti.80 Fialettis painting, an Assumption for the Basadonna Chapel, was mentioned only in Malvasia. Flaminio Corner describes the two chapels in the church, stating that one was dedicated to St Francis, and the other to the Blessed Virgin.81 No descriptions beyond this basic identification of the location and subject exist, however based on the list of works compiled by Zorzi,82 it appears that this was the only painting of the Virgin in the church, thus making it potentially easier to identify in early archival documents. There exist two inventories of the church which mention paintings of the Virgin, one from 1630 which states that it was a canvas of the Blessed Virgin in a chapel,83 and the second dating to 18 February 1668, calling it a painting of the Madonna, at the altar of the Most Holy Virgin.84 Thus, if one assumes that Zorzis account is correct, both of these entries would logically refer to the Fialetti painting.85 Furthermore, though this is was a chapel for the Basadonna family, there is no indication of their particular devotions in the church, or any payments for its maintenance. This also appears as the only instance in Fialettis oeuvre for which we have a record of a private familys patronage for a chapel, suggesting that there may have been more such commissions

80 81

Ibid. For a list of paintings in the church, see A. Zorzi, Venezia Scomparsa, 254. F. Corner, Notizie Storiche delle Chiese e Monasteri di Venezia e di Torcello, 368. 82 A. Zorzi, Venezia Scomparsa, 254. 83 Inventari, San Nicol della Lattuga, Corporazioni Religiose Soppresse, b.2, 1630. [ASV] No. 14, Appendix II. 84 Inventari, San Nicol della Lattuga, Corporazioni Religiose Soppresse, b.2, 18 febraio 1668. [ASV] No. 14, Appendix II. 85 Malvasias description of the work as also containing angels, St Nicholas and St Chiara of Montefalco, is not mutually exclusive to these two entries, as the figures of saints appear to be auxiliary based on the dedication of the chapel.

35

among the works for which we have no information concerning their location or commission.

4.2. San Canziano Paintings for Scuole or Guilds Commissions by scuole or guilds for altarpieces or decorative schemes within churches in Venice were common,86 and they make up the largest proportion of known patronage of Fialettis paintings.87 The church of San Canziano underwent a series of successive restorations from the mid-Cinquecento,88 however, unlike other churches, the archival records kept by this church are extensive, and include regular inventories of the church goods, including lists of pictures with their location and condition. The three paintings, a Piet, the Adoration of the Magi, and San Rocco curing the sick, are no longer in the church, having been replaced from the mid-Seicento. Though the locations for both the Piet and the Adoration of the Magi are listed, there is no indication as to whether the painting of San Rocco was an altarpiece or a wall painting. From late Cinquecento pastoral visits, one can see that by November 1591, the altar dedicated to San Rocco (described as being in the right side of the nave) was consecrated, but the decoration is not described.89 While it is uncertain whether Fialettis painting was associated with this

86

See P. Humfrey and R. MacKenney, The Venetian Trade Guilds as Patrons of Art in the Renaissance, The Burlington Magazine 128, 1986, 317-327+329-330. P. Humfrey, Competitive Devotions: The Venetian Scuole Piccole as Donors of Altarpieces in Venice around 1500, The Art Bulletin 70, 1988, 401423. 87 Also of particular note, and discussed in detail in the Catalogue of Paintings are the works for the church of La Maddelena. The archival records present an interesting situation in which the likely patronage of a picture may be substantiated based on a known relationship between Fialetti and the gastaldo of the Scuola di SS. Sacramento, Giacomo Sarzina, with whom Fialetti would later work on the 1625 illustrated edition of Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata, discussed in Chapter III. The Scuola Grande di San Teodoro also marks a unique case, given Fialettis membership in the Scuola (as discussed in Chapter I). The form of those paintings (which are no longer in situ, as of July 2008), and their original locations within the Scuola are discussed in the Catalogue of Paintings. 88 U. Franzoi and D. Di Stefano, Le Chiese di Venezia, 159. 89 Visite Pastorali: Priuli, b. 5, 21 November 1591, 251r. [APV] No. 15, Appendix II.

36

altar, it seems likely given the subject matter, and the description of the work as one of Fialettis best. Later records, from October 1604, suggest that the altar was maintained by a scuoletta of San Rocco,90 which may indicate that they commissioned the work by Fialetti. Pastoral visits do not indicate whether the painting of the Piet, which is described as being under the organ,91 was physically painted on the underside of the organ, or hung below it.

The archives concerning the fabric of the church are extensive and also contain a short history written in 1851, though it does not describe earlier decoration.92 The earliest inventories included date from 1720 and 1737, and contain only the property of the Scuola della SS. Sacramento, including a small number of paintings. In both inventories, there is a list of works, beginning with a Last Supper by Veronese, and ending with a description of three paintings by un-named artists: one of the flagellation, one of the crowning with thorns, and one of the Dead Christ which was under the organ, and is now above the Sacristy.93 The description of the third painting as being of the dead Christ under the organ matches that of Boschini and Malvasia, suggesting that this was the painting by Fialetti, even though he is not named. Therefore we can assume that this painting was commissioned by the Scuola of the SS. Sacramento, and survived in the church until at least 1737. The next inventory dates from 1812, and the majority of entries only include brief descriptions of the locations of the pictures (for example, all the
90 91

Visite Pastorali: Zane, b. 7, no. 7, October 1604, 2r. [APV] No. 16, Appendix II. Sotto lorgano. The organ itself was restored in 1764, though the shutters by Giovanni Contarini were kept. For more information on the organ, and its restoration, see: S. dalla Libera, LArte degli Organi a Venezia, Venice 1979, 163-164. 92 Inventari, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, Atti Generali, b. 12, 1-4 April 1851, 1r-1v. [APV] No. 17, Appendix II. 93 Inventari, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, b. 12, 1720, 12v and 1737, 17. [APV] No. 18, Appendix II.

37

altarpieces are listed together). One of the few entries for which the subject is given is described as a painting representing the adoration of the Magi with a carved gilded frame.94 While there may have been a later representation of this subject, without a named artist, it seems likely that this is the Fialetti painting.

The subsequent inventory of 1843 contains a more specific account of the paintings in the church. Fialetti is not named, however, there is one work listed as a painting hanging above, with a gold-coloured frame representing the birth of Jesus Christ.95 Though this is not strictly synonymous with the Adoration of the Magi, it is similar enough to warrant consideration as an entry describing the Fialetti painting. Additionally, the lack of information concerning the artist suggests that it was a minor figure historically, or that it was unsigned. The fate of the painting after 1843 is suggested by a short note written to the right of the entry, which seems to indicate that it was removed from the church in the following year.96

Thus from these records, in conjunction with early accounts, we are presented with at least a partial history of the three paintings by Fialetti, and their relationship with the scuole and decoration of the church. The Piet under the organ was commissioned by the Scuola of the SS. Sacramento and remained in the church until at least 1737, but does not appear in later inventories. The Adoration of the Magi, though of uncertain commission, potentially remained in the church until 1844, when it was removed (perhaps because of
94 95

Inventari, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, b. 12, 5 December 1812, 7r. [APV] No. 19, Appendix II. Inventari, Fabbriceria di S. Canciano, b. 12, 1843, 1v. [APV] The condition of the painting is listed as bad (cattivo), though whether this also indicates its quality is uncertain. No. 20, Appendix II. 96 Alienato nel 1844. Ibid. The 1851 inventory repeats this information. Inventari, b. 12, 1-4 April 1851, 5r. [APV] No. 21, Appendix II.

38

its poor condition). Interestingly, it is the San Rocco, described as one of the most beautiful, for which we have almost no information concerning patronage, date and its eventual removal.

4.3. The Casa Correggio Private Commissions The final type of patronage known to have been given to Fialetti is that by individuals or families for paintings to decorate their homes. While earlier in this chapter the idea of a private commission for a church was discussed, it differs significantly from works painted for a primarily private setting in terms of subject matter, and visibility of the pictures (therefore marking a considerable variation in their presence in early printed sources). Unusually, Fialettis patronage base seems to be centred on foreign patrons, in particular those associated with Sir Henry Wotton and Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel.97 However it does appear that he did have a small base of Italian patrons, including the Correggio family, for who he is known to have painted two canvases. In addition to this, Fialetti was also involved in a commission for the Gonzaga family, brought about by his relationship with Wotton. While these cases may only represent a fraction of Fialettis private commissions in the city, they are indicative of his status and demonstrate his versatility in subject and range of patronage.

Agostino Correggio likely met Odoardo Fialetti through Daniel Nys, from whom he bought a number of paintings.98 It is uncertain whether Agostino bought the two Fialetti paintings from Nys, or whether they were commissioned, and there does not appear to be
97 98

The paintings for Wotton will be discussed in Chapter V. L. Borean, La quadreria di Agostino Giovan Donato Correggio nel collezionismo veneziano del Seicento, Udine 2000, 77.

39

a record of the contents of the collection in the years before Fialettis death.99 There is, however, an inventory of the paintings, furnishings and jewels in the Casa Correggio in Venice dating from 1646, which lists both paintings, and their price. The two paintings are both valued at 10 ducats, and depict The Children in the Furnace100 and Daniel in the Lions Den.101 While the inventory gives no further description, and notes their quality as very good, it does allow us to compare the valuations of Fialettis pictures with those of his contemporaries and predecessors in order to better understand his status as a painter. Not all paintings are accompanied by a description of their quality, and some by more well-known artists are in fact valued lower than Fialettis, including a painting of An Old Man and a Young Man with a Lily by Bronzino, valued at 8 ducats, a painting of Christ by Tintoretto valued at 10 ducats, and a set of the Four Ages of Man (two by Palma and two by Tintoretto) valued in total at 40 ducats (10 ducats each).102 To look at the price only as a measure of quality is simplistic, as the valuation also reflects the size and materials used, which may indicate that Fialettis paintings were larger canvases than the others mentioned.103 Conversely, it is safe to say that 10 ducats is at the lower-end of valuations for paintings in the inventory, and a painting by the Carracci (a portrait of

99

Ibid. Daniel Nys is also listed in the 1671 inventory of the Casa Correggio. Inventari, Commissaria Correggio, Fraterna Grande de SantAntonin, b. 6, 1 March 1671, 121v. [ASV] For more information on the collecting habits of the cittadini in Venice, the development of taste, and brief comparisons of the nobili and the cittadini in these respects, see: M. Schmitter, Virtuous Riches: The Bricolage of Cittadini Identities in Early-Sixteenth Century Venice, Renaissance Quarterly 57, 2004, 908-969. 100 Inventari, Commissaria Correggio, Fraterna Grande di SantAntonin, b.6, 1646, 5r. [ASV] No. 22, Appendix II. The genre of this painting is unclear: and there is no indication as to whether this is a contemporary, historical or religious picture. 101 Ibid. 102 Inventari, Commissaria Correggio, Fraterna Grande de SantAntonin, b. 6, 1646, 9v, 4v and 4r (respectively). [ASV] The author of the inventory only differentiates between a current valuation and the cost of the picture when it was purchased in a few instances. 103 For further information on the pricing of paintings in the renaissance, see: M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy, Oxford and New York, 1988. I. Cecchini, Quadri e commercio a Venezia durante il Seicento: Uno studio sul mercato dellarte, Venice 2000.

40

Giovanna Correggio) is valued at 150 ducats,104 a Half Length Portrait in Armour by Giorgione is valued at 200 ducats,105 and The Finding of Moses by Salvator Rosa is valued at 500 ducats.106 Thus from this information, we can assume that Fialetti was a painter of average esteem (both during and in the years following his death), whose works in the Casa Correggio were neither large nor extraordinary (though of a generally good standard).

4.4. Crociferi In addition to information about his patronage and contemporary esteem, the study of Fialettis lost paintings also reveals information about his style and influence, as well as the overall decorative scheme of churches, and his change in status through the nineteenth century. The painting for the convent of the Crociferi was correctly described in the Settecento, when Gori Gandellini described it as being in the refectory (by this time in the possession of the Jesuits), and attributed its commission to the Crociferi. Trying to ascertain the fate of the paintings in the refectory after the suppression of the order is aided in part by the early sources: the paintings by Fialetti and Pietro Ricchi (depictions of the Feast of Belshazzar and The Multiplication of Loaves and Fishes respectively) are listed as being in the refectory of the Gesuiti in Boschinis Ricche Minere, while Tintorettos Wedding at Cana is described in the sacristy of Santa Maria della Salute, having been moved from the refectory of the Crociferi.107

104 105

Inventari, Commissaria Correggio, Fraterna Grande de SantAntonin, 1646, 4r. Ibid. 106 Inventari, Commissaria Correggio, Fraterna Grande de SantAntonin, 1671, 30v. 107 A.M. Zanetti and M. Boschini, Ricche Minere, 335.

41

Fialettis relationship with the Crociferi is documented by Malvasia, who states that upon returning to Venice, he lodged in the Crociferi, living there for a time, and had the honour to paint the image of the Feast of Belshazzar, to be hung across from Tintorettos Wedding at Cana, and above the door.108 The subject is based on the account from the Book of Daniel, divided in three sections, in which the last king of Babylon holds a feast for high officials and his concubines, using the holy vessels from the temple in Jerusalem, and during which a mysterious hand appeared and began writing on the wall, foretelling Belshazzars downfall.109 While the second section, the so-called writing on the wall is more commonly associated with the scene,110 Fialetti appears to have painted the first episode. The banqueting scene is described succinctly as: the king seated upon a throne in the great hall of the feast and drinking from the sacred vessels; the banqueters... [with] candelabra lighting the scene.111 From this description, one can see an immediate congruence with the composition of Tintorettos Wedding at Cana, suggesting that it was painted as a later counterpart to his masters work. It is my opinion that the relationship of the paintings, hanging across from each other, may indicate that there was not only a compositional similarity, but also theological parallels to be drawn, between the Old and New Testaments.

108

C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 311. Malvasia does not specify the reasons for Fialettis lodging with the Crociferi, but from his use of the verb ricoverare, it suggests that the artist may have been ill. This is supported by a letter from Sir Henry Wotton to the Gonzaga family, which states the artist was recovering from a long illness in 1606. 109 For more information on the figure of Belshazzar, his appearances in the Old Testament, and depictions in art and literature, see: B. Bayer, Belshazzar, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 3, Detroit 2007, 306-307. 110 In particular, one associates Rembrandts 1635 painting of Belshazzars Feast (oil on canvas, 168 x 209cm) in the National Gallery, London, with the story. For more information on the interpretation of this aspect of the scene, see: F. Zimmerman, The Writing on the Wall: Dan. 5.25 f., The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series 55, 1965, 201-207. 111 M. Clermont-Ganneau and R.W. Rogers, Mene, Tekel, Peres, and the Feast of Belshazzar, Hebraica 3, 1887, 101. For the biblical passage upon which the scene is based, see: Daniel 5:1-4.

42

There exist a number of versions of this scene associated with the studio of Tintoretto, of which only one shares sufficient detail with the Wedding at Cana to be considered as potentially informing our knowledge of the Fialetti composition.112 Two earlier versions of the subject, exist, one by Tintoretto113 and the other thought to be by Giovanni Galizzi114, suggesting that it was a theme explored early in the artists career and taken up by later assistants. Two later versions, however, appear connected to compositional ideas presented in the Wedding at Cana. The first, The Feast of Belshazzar,115 by a Northern follower of Tintoretto shares some detail with the Wedding at Cana, but focuses on a much smaller area. Quite unusually there are very few plates, jars and glasses on the table, and the artist has chosen to highlight the feast, rather than the profaning of the vessels from the temple.116 The second version, Daniel Announces the End of the Reign of Belshazzar,117 which is sometimes described as a variant of the previous picture,118 is by an imitator of Tintoretto. Of the paintings discussed, this version shares the most in
112

There are also a number of versions created independently of the studio of Tintoretto. Of particular note for its compositional similarity to Tintorettos Wedding at Cana is J. Harmensz Muller, Belshazzars Feast, 1598. Engraving, 360x407mm. [BM] 113 J. Tintoretto, The Feast of Belshazzar, 1541 1542. Oil on panel, 22 x 27cm, Museo di Castelvecchio, Verona. For an illustration, see R. Pallucchini and P. Rossi, Tintoretto: Le opere sacre e profane, vol. I, 135 (cat. 36). 114 G. Galizzi, The Feast of Belshazzar, c. 1540s. Oil on panel, 29 x 156cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. For discussion surrounding the authorship of the painting, see: R. Echols, Giovanni Galizzi and the Problem of the Young Tintoretto, Artibus et Historiae 16, 1995, 69-110. The image (plate 29) is reproduced on p. 100, where Echols also suggests a connection between Galizzi and the Tintoretto studio. 115 Northern follower of Tintoretto(?), The Feast of Belshazzar, c. 1560 1566. Oil on canvas, 166 x 267cm, Private Collection. See R. Pallucchini and P. Rossi, Tintoretto: Le opere sacre e profane, vol. I, 257 (cat. A133). 116 In all accounts of Fialettis version of this painting (Malvasia, Boschini and Gori Gandellini), the aspect of profaning the vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem in emphasised, suggesting that the table setting may have played an important compositional role. 117 Imitator of Tintoretto, Daniel Announces the End of the Reign of Belshazzar. Oil on canvas, 185.5x201cm, Alte Pinakothek, Munich [Inv. 2265]. This work appears to have been trimmed given that the heads of Daniel and Belshazzars wife or concubine are too close to the edge of the canvas to allow framing without loss of important pictoral information. For more information on the painting, see R. Kultzen and P. Eikemeier, Venezianische Gemlde des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, 2 vol, Bayerische Staatsgemldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, vol. 1, cat. 90 and vol. 2, 167-168. 118 R. Pallucchini and P. Rossi, Tintoretto: Le opere sacre e profane, vol. I, 257. The second version changes the emphasis from the floor tiles to the vessels from the Temple, and appears to be darker, and more thoroughly worked in respect to detail of texture in fabric and on reflective surfaces.

43

common with the Wedding at Cana, including strikingly similar vessels and food on the table, and intricately braided hair of several women. The presence of large vessels in the foreground also echoes the composition of the Wedding at Cana, as does the detail of landscape and clouds visible in the upper left corner of the picture. The style of the picture is in keeping with Fialettis work, with a keen sense of draughtsmanship underlying the composition (though again, because it appears to be cut down on the top and sides) this may be slightly obscured. Nevertheless, it is this style of picture which Fialetti probably painted in the refectory of the Crociferi, responding both to a compositional framework set by Tintoretto, and in response to the religious programme of the room, drawing interesting parallels between Old and New Testament.

5. Extant Paintings Of all the churches listed in early sources, only three have paintings concretely attributed to Fialetti: San Nicola da Tolentino, San Giuliano and Santi Giovanni e Paolo. These churches have seven Fialetti paintings between them, two of them signed (in San Giuliano in Santi Giovanni e Paolo). These paintings represent the most important contribution we have concerning Fialettis technique and style, and allow us to create a framework for discussing his influences and contribution to Seicento painting.119

5.1. Tolentini

119

The paintings for Sir Henry Wotton, though important, are paintings based on stock-types for a foreign base of patrons, and thus do not explore his originality, invention, use of colour and line in the same way as these works. Further information on the paintings for each church, and their history, can be found in the Catalogue of Pictures.

44

The church of San Nicola da Tolentino was founded in 1591 and consecrated in 1602,120 and thus the painting by Fialetti, as with the Riformati, would have been painted soon after its consecration. Described only by Boschini, accounts of it do not reappear until the twentieth century.121 The painting is not labelled in the church, and is not dated, though information provided in the church suggests that it was done in the first decade of the Seicento.122 The painting itself hangs on the entrance wall of the church [Fig. 2.8], and the composition is dominated by the figures of St Agnes and Christ surrounded by putti. In the lower background, set against a sunset is a view of the piazetta San Marco.123 The location of the picture makes a detailed examination impossible, and it is uncertain as to whether the work is signed. St Agnes is identifiable by the lamb at her feet and the palm she holds in her right hand, though her dress is not typical of her depiction. While Tintoretto depicted the saint with her hair flowing, and in white robes, Fialetti depicts her with her hair up, and cloaked in red, perhaps to remind the viewer of the martyrs blood. The quality of the picture appears good, and Fialetti pays attention to the variety of texture, particularly in the robes of the Saint. This picture is significant in that it does not appear to repeat any motifs from his printed oeuvre, including figural or landscape details, thus demonstrating his imagination and inventiveness in moving away from the models of both his master and his own printed works.

120

U. Franzoi and D. Di Stefano, Le Chiese di Venezia, 80. See also: E. Bassi, Tracce di Chiese Veneziane Distrutte, Venice 1997, 155. 121 L. Salerni describes the painting as St Agnes interceding to the Redeemer for Venice. L. Salerni, Repertorio delle opere darte e dellarredo delle chiese e delle scuole di Venezia, 233. 122 The interpretive information states only that there is a painting by Fialetti on the wall. Alle pareti venti quadri raffiguranti Santi e Personaggi sacri opere di pittori che vi lavorarono nei primi decenni del 600, tra i quali Jacopo Palma il Giovane, Sante Peranda, e i loro discepoli, Fialetti, Dal Friso, Forabosco. Don Giuseppe Costantini, Chiesa di San Nicola da Tolentino, Brochure, Venice 2005. 123 This is one of the two identifiable cityscapes Fialetti paints, the second being the birds-eye View of Venice for Sir Henry Wotton.

45

5.2. San Giuliano The attributions of the three paintings for the church of San Zulian, two of the Ecstasy of St James and one of San Carlo Borromeo, are concrete, despite the earlier mistakes made by Boschini concerning their subject.124 A pastoral visit from 1593 states that the altar of St James was consecrated and properly decorated by the Arte dei Strazzaroli,125 who were active in the church, commissioning both an earlier altarpiece of St James and other saints by Lazzaro Bastiani, 126 and the works by Fialetti. Though the San Carlo Borromeo is of uncertain patronage, a list of scuole in the church name a Scuola di San Carlo et Zulian, which would seem a likely candidate for the commission of this picture.127 In fact, throughout the pastoral visits dating until 1634, there is no mention of either the specific decoration of any of the altars or the years in which they were decorated.128

124

The paintings of San Rocco are by Sante Peranda, and appear on the left of the door as one enters the church. 125 Visite Pastorali: Priuli, b. 5, 21 February 1593, 413r. [APV] No. 23, Appendix II. 126 P. Humfrey and R. MacKenney, The Venetian Trade Guilds as Patrons of Art in the Renaissance, Burlington Magazine 128, 1986, 325. This article states that one of the paintings by Fialetti was an altarpiece, however both paintings (the smaller being a pendant) are located to the side of the altar, and there is no indication that they have been moved. However it should be noted that neither work is framed. The patronage of the altar was debated in earlier years, having been previously thought to be under the patronage of Girolamo Vignola, as discussed by S. Holt, Paolo Veronese and his Patrons, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 1991, 290. It should be noted that there are no documents from the archives of the Arte dei Strazzaroli from the period during which these paintings would have been commissioned. Arte dei Strazzaroli, Arti, b. 708. [ASV] Early inventories confirm the patronage of the altar. Visite Pastorali: Priuli, b. 6, no. 19, 1593. [APV] No. 24, Appendix II. Similarly, pastoral visits under Patriarch Vendramin (1610), though mentioning the fact that the altar was consecrated, do not mention its decoration. Visite Pastorali: Vendramin, b. 8, no. 8, 14 January 1610, 1r-4r. [APV] No. 25, Appendix II. 127 Visite Pastorali: Tiepolo, b. 9, no. 8, 17 August 1620, 5. [APV] No 26, Appendix II. This painting is located on the left-hand wall of the chapel to the right of the altar, next to works by Palma il Giovane and Leonardo Corona, none of which appear iconographically related. 128 The only mention of art occurs in 1634, when the priest states that there were many altars decorated by various artists. Visite Pastorali: Cornaro, b. 11, no. 10, 22 January 1634, 3r. [APV] No. 27, Appendix II.

46

The two paintings of St James, The Ecstasy of St James and St James and the Mohamedan129 and the Attempted Assasination of San Carlo Borromeo are all stylistically similar, with Fialettis smooth finish, and thus dissimilar to the late style of Tintoretto, to which he was exposed during his artistic formation (and which was also one of the predominant artistic styles of the period).130 The Ecstasy of St James is signed [Fig. 2.9 and 2.10],131 but not dated and is both the lightest of the three paintings and the most compositionally complex. St James sits at the right, dominating the foreground, with Ermogene to his left, and both are carefully delineated,132 with a clear sense of form underneath their garments, supporting Fialettis interest in disegno. The upper register of the picture contains a dramatically foreshortened angel breaking a set of chains above a grotesque man or demon. The finish of the picture is much more reminiscent of Central Italian painters than the predominant legacy of Tintoretto, and Fialettis paintings (though obviously painted for a Counter Reformation audience with their dynamic postures and clear sense of action) seem return to earlier styles of painting.133 The colour palette lacks the warmth typically associated with the Venetians, and appears almost acidic in its use

129

These paintings are listed in the church as being St James freeing Ermogene and St James and the magician Ermogene. For more information on the devotion of the Arte dei Strazzaroli to St James, see S. Holt, Paolo Veronese and his patrons, Chapter IV: The Altar of St James at the Church of S. Zulian, pp. 290-298. 130 T. Pignatti points out that it is impossible to speak of a Venetian school of the Seicento, due in part to the fragmentary nature and oscillating tastes caused by the influences of the great Cinquecento masters and the new tastes for disegno. T. Pignatti, Larte Veneziana, Venice 1993, 195. 131 The signature appears under the left foot of St James on a rock: ODOARDVS FIALETVS / BONONIAE PINSIT. While there is one known instance of a falsified signature by the artist in his printed work, the signatures on all paintings are accepted as authentic based on the historically concrete attributions, and their similarities. For information on signatures in Venetian renaissance paintings, see: L.C. Matthew, The Painters Presence: Signatures in Venetian Renaissance Pictures, The Art Bulletin 80, 1998, 616-648. 132 It must be noted that the feet of St James are of a slightly lesser quality than the rest of the body. This is appears to be an inherent weakness in Fialettis oeuvre, and can be seen in both paintings and prints. 133 For example, there do not appear to be any areas of texture which are suggested through quick brushstrokes, as one seems in the work of the ageing Tintoretto. Rather, Fialetti appears to paint everything in painstaking detail.

47

of red and blue as highlights against a neutral background.134 Also of note is the landscape in the background, a theme Fialetti continues to explore in his oeuvre, in particular the book of Landscapes from 1610.135 This predilection for landscape detail may relate to other assistants in the Tintoretto studio, and in particular may reflect the influence of Pozzoserrato, whose landscapes can be compared to Fialettis.136 These colour combinations and extreme interest in landscape detail may constitute the rarely described Northern character or influence on his work.137

The smaller painting, St James and the Mohamedan [Fig. 2.11] which hangs to the left of the window on the same wall, is of a much darker tone, and the central figure group of St James and the magician Ermogene are highlighted against the background through the radiance of St James halo and Ermogenes turban. In this sense, one could argue that this picture (and also the San Carlo Borromeo) is more Tintorettesque in the use of light. Above this group one can see the earlier scene of Ermogene being restrained by angels before being freed by the saint. There is a slight difference in the treatment of drapery between this work and the previous one in that is not deeply folded or defined, hanging more naturalistically than that seen in the previous picture, in which the drapery seemed to indicate a sense of movement from the figure of St James, as if he had just turned away from the viewer.

134 135

This may also indicate a particular debt to, or interest in, Northern European art of the period. For further discussion of repetition, variant drawings and themes and imagination in the Cinquecento and Seicento, see: L. Boubli, Savoir-faire: La variante dans le dessin italien au XVI sicle, Paris 2003. M. Loh, New and Improved: Repetition as Originality in Italian Baroque Practice and Theory, The Art Bulletin 86, 2004, 477-504. 136 W. Wegner, Drawings by Pozzoserrato, Master Drawings 1, 1963, 27-32 + 82-86. Wegner suggests that all of Fialettis landscapes should be considered as being after Pozzoserrato due to the recurrent bridge motif, however due also to their similarities to work by the Carracci, this assertion seems farfetched. 137 Fialetti, Odoardo, Dizionario Enciclopedico Bolaffi dei Pittori e degli Incisori, vol. IV, 1973, 433.

48

The final picture by Fialetti in San Giuliano is the Attempted Assassination of San Carlo Borromeo [Fig. 2.12].138 Fialettis painting chooses the moment immediately before he was shot, the gunman dominating the left of the picture with his pistol drawn. The saint is ignorant of the action behind him, as are the ten men also at prayer in the background. Of these, the second from the left stares out at the viewer, suggesting either that he is part of the Humiliati plot, or that Fialetti has painted himself into the historical scene.139 There are several musicians to the extreme right of the canvas next to the altar, which suggest a debt to the musical angels painted by Giovanni Bellini. Fialetti has very cleverly utilised colour in this scene to draw our attention to the figure of the saint, whose red and white vestments echo the red of the cushion upon which he kneels, as well as the altar cloth, and thus it is only upon a closer inspection that the viewer notices the would-be assassin (who is camouflaged in neutral tones) to the left. Of the three paintings, this is the most like the work of Tintoretto in its use of light and colour, in particular the halo of San Carlo Borromeo illuminating his face, however the texture is still characteristically smooth and the work is in a highly-finished state. While this painting is neither signed nor dated, the titular saint does help us ascertain when it may have been painted. The saint died in 1584, and was not canonised until 1 November 1610,140 and thus if we assume (by the presence of the halo) that Fialetti is depicting a saint as opposed to the beatified cardinal, it must have been painted sometime after that date. Thus it may be logical to assume that all three works were painted after the pictures for Santi Giovanni e
138 139

St Charles Borromeo, Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03619a.htm , 2008. Unfortunately, the only painting which should have contained a self-portrait of Fialetti within the portraits of members of the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro (of which he was a member) no longer exists, and thus comparison is impossible. 140 St Charles Borromeo, Catholic Encyclopaedia.

49

Paolo (dated 1606), thus allowing us to obtain a clearer view of his artistic maturation and the progression of his career.

5.3. Santi Giovanni e Paolo Fialettis three paintings for the church, all dated to c. 1606, are located in the Sacristy and depict two miracles of St Dominic (The miraculous payment of the boatmen and St Dominic saves a book from the flames) and a Risen Christ with Saints. There is very little information about the commission of these paintings, though it is known that Antonio Serafino was responsible for the decoration of the sacristy in the early Seicento,141 and thus it is likely that he was involved in selecting Fialetti for the task. These three paintings are Fialettis most famous to the modern audience, and are the only works for Venetian churches to have recent commentary. Zava Boccazzi describes the decoration of the sacristy as being an indication of a taste not entirely aware of the Baroque, but still relying on a late mannerist character, with academic tendencies, and thus indicative of the crisis facing Venetian painting at the end of the Cinquecento.142

She then goes on to describe these paintings as demonstrating the potential of Fialettis painting, including most notably their naturalism upon which is laid a particular narrative style, with an interest in landscape... minutely depicted, with an almost Northern sensibility.143 These observations are particularly evident in The miraculous

141

F. Zava Boccazzi, La Basilica dei Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venezia, Venice 1965, 240. See also A.M. Caccin, ed., La Basilica dei SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Venezia, Venice 1964, 99. 142 Ibid. See also D. Rosand, The Crisis of the Venetian Renaissance Tradition, LArte 11-12, 1970, 4-53. 143 F. Zava Boccazzi, La Basilica dei Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venezia, 243.

50

payment of the boatmen144 [Fig. 2.13] in which the landscape in the background is again reminiscent of Fialettis printed works, thus suggesting that he is actively propagating his own ideas of good disegno in large-scale commissions. The landscape itself comprises a small bridge and buildings in the upper right, approximately twelve ships in the centre background (with sails being blown from the left, though this is not reflected in any movement in the trees), and stepped hills to the left. The boats in particular foreshadow compositions he reuses for Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa of 1624.145 The figures are very carefully painted, with a clear sense of action and movement, both in the half-submerged boatmen, and the central figural group demanding payment from the saint. The style of an unrelated picture for the church of SS. Felice e Fortunato in Noale146 is described as being like that of the Carracci but informed by Tintoretto,147 thus supporting both the attribution of this (and the other two pictures in the Sacristy) to Fialetti, and resonating with Zava Boccazzis assertions. As it is likely Fialetti would have been working concurrently on these paintings and the plates for the 1608 Il vero modo et ordine, it is only natural that there should be similarities between the two, most notable in the boatmen whose face is a direct quotation of a grotesque head from the drawing book, and the muscular backs of the figures in the water which reflect sculptural torsos, some of which may be related to casts in the Tintoretto workshop. There is an enigmatic figure in the lower left corner of this painting, dressed in contemporary Seicento costume and posed in a gesture of prayer. His face is very similar to figures in both Il vero modo and Spieghels De humani corporis fabrica libri decem, though it is
144

O. Fialetti, The miraculous payment of the boatmen, c. 1606, oil on canvas, 222 x 491cm. This painting is signed on a rock at the centre of the composition: ODOARDVS / FIALETVS / F, but is not dated. 145 This work will be discussed fully in Chapter III. 146 As discussed in the Catalogue of Paintings. 147 D.M. Federici, Memorie Trevigiane, 54.

51

uncertain if it represents an unknown patron or Antonio Serafino, who was responsible for the programme of decoration in the sacristy.

The second painting, St Dominic saving the book from the flames148 [Fig. 2.14], located to the left of the altar, is smaller than the previous picture. However, its importance again is in its demonstration of the unique quality of Fialettis painting: a base founded in the Bolgonese tradition, compounded upon by his time under Tintoretto, creating a naturalistic, smooth quality that was new in the Venetian artistic environment.149 Though the foreground is filled with the figures of St Dominic and the onlookers, the background is fanciful and ambiguous, with a broad obelisk and crenellated towers.150 I would argue that Zava Boccazzis assertion of a mannerist character in Fialettis painting applies almost exclusively to the background detail of this picture. The figures themselves reflect Fialettis interest the human form, and the draperies (though carefully painted and in some cases sumptuous) do not appear as artificial as some of those in contemporary works. According to Canella, the Beheading of St John the Baptist151 for the cathedral in Tolmezzo is stylistically similar to the San Zanipolo painting of St Dominic saving a book from the flames, including the fantastic quality of the background.152

148 149

O. Fialetti, St Dominic saving a book from the flames, c. 1606, oil on canvas, 219x141cm. F. Zava Boccazzi, La Basilica dei Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venezia, 246. 150 The narrative function of both of these elements is uncertain, though the placement of the obelisk in the centre of the canvas suggests it importance. 151 See the Catalogue of Paintings. 152 S. Canella, Odoardo Fialetti (1573 1638), Tesi di Laurea, Universit di Padova, 1974-1975, 60.

52

The final painting in the sacristy is the Risen Christ with Saints153 [Fig. 2.15]. Christ is pictured seated with a banner, as Dominican saints and members of the religious community look on and examine the wounds of the crucifixion. The composition is pyramidal, with Christ at the apex, St Dominic kissing the wounds in his side and a female saint (perhaps St Clare) at his feet. There also appears to be a depiction of the same male figure that appears at the edge of The miraculous payment of the boatmen in the lower left, though here he is shown in three-quarter view.154 This is the most traditional composition of the three, and is also painted with the brightest palette. This particular depiction of a Risen Christ can be compared to other versions, including Palmas Doge Renier Zen being blessed by the Saviour for the Ospedaletto of the Crociferi.155 Palmas depiction shows an elongated figure of Christ, foreshortened and blessing the Doge. Fialettis Christ differs significantly in his posture, and the immediacy it creates: Christ sits among the faithful, a physical being in a heavenly realm surrounded by clouds and putti. While the effect created may not be as dramatic or exciting as Palmas figure of Christ, it is no less successful in its purpose (though one could argue that it less successful compositionally).156

153

O. Fialetti, Risen Christ with Saints, c. 1606, oil on canvas, approximately 220x140cm. Because of the placement of the painting, and the dim light conditions, it is uncertain if the painting is signed or not. Additionally, this painting is in a slightly worse condition than the two of St Dominic, and there is (as of March 2007) a streak of white over the varnish at the left. 154 Again, because of the light conditions and the placement of the painting, it is difficult to determine if the two figures are the same, however he does not appear to be an identifiable Dominican saint or member of the clergy. 155 As reproduced in S. Mason Rinaldi, Jacopo Palma il Giovane allOspedaletto dei Crociferi: Una Nuova Cronologia, Arte Veneta XXXI, 1977, 240-250, fig. 1. 156 Due to a lack of early information on Fialettis paintings, we are uncertain as to how the paintings were received by contemporary audiences. Their stylistic differences would have been obvious in an artistic climate dominated by a Tintorettesque style, though it is uncertain if they were perceived as successful works, or if their differences contributed to Fialettis lack of success or recognition as a painter and his eventual preference of the printed medium.

53

6. Conclusion While historically relegated to a lesser status than his prints, Fialettis paintings and patrons are more diverse than previously assumed. Not only did he paint for Venetian churches, but also for churches outside Venice and the Veneto, and for a number of private patrons (although we only have a few accounts from which to extrapolate). Of the approximately 50 paintings recorded in primary sources, early guides and biographies, less than ten appear to have survived, or are still concretely attributed to the artist. 157 This lack of images makes it difficult to accurately and completely characterise Fialettis style, however from the pictures that do exist, it is safe to form a primary description of his style, which though infused with a Tintorettesque sense of light has a much smoother finish than that of the master, and his compositions demonstrate a very clear sense of the importance Fialetti placed on disegno over colorito. Aspects of his paintings can be attributed to influence from both Northern artists working in Venice (including Pozzoserrato) and the Carracci, thus while his style is a display of scholarly eclecticism,158 it is responsive to concurrent artistic trends and ideas. Additionally it becomes clear that in his paintings, he exemplifies his own ideals of disegno and demonstrates and interest in variant designs and repetition as a practice, as outlined in his printed works, and copies a number of motifs and figures from these works, rather than ideas from the Tintoretto workshop.

This examination of Fialettis paintings has also provided more information about his status as a painter in the early Seicento. From the descriptions in early sources, it

157 158

This excludes the paintings for English patrons, which will be discussed in Chapter V. Fialetti, Odoardo, Dizionario Enciclopedico Bolaffi dei Pittori e degli Incisori, 433.

54

becomes clear that he enjoyed a relative success based simply in the number of known commissions over the relatively short period during which he was active, though his activity appears to be based in religious pictures rather than large scale mythologies or portraits as with a number of earlier Venetian painters. While we do have information on the quality of some of his pictures, and in a very few cases their corresponding size or value, it is unclear whether Fialettis pictures fetched a comparable price to works by his contemporaries, and thus it is difficult to place him in the art market of the period. This brief examination of style, patronage, and historical reception suggest a figure who was responding to contemporary interests in both a Venetian sense of colour and a burgeoning importance of disegno, who has unfairly been labelled a printmaker only. His paintings, though not as significant as those of Tintoretto or his contemporary Palma il Giovane, are invaluable art historically and socially in that they exemplify the changing tastes of the early Seicento, supporting Pignattis view that Venetian painting of the early Seicento cannot be relegated to one dominant school of taste, and when combined with his printed oeuvre offer an examination of the changing role of the artist.

55

Chapter III: Fialettis Printed Works

1. Introduction Though a competent painter, Odoardo Fialetti is perhaps best known for his printed works which comprise both single plate etchings, series of prints and books. Alfred von Bartsch gave 243 plates as being by Fialetti in the Illustrated Bartsch,1 however upon further study, the true number of extant prints is between 425 and 450. Many of Fialettis early prints are copies after paintings by Venetian masters, examples of which include works after Tintorettos St Sebastian2, and the Wedding at Cana3 for the Crociferi, which earned him an unfair (and incorrect) contemporary reputation as a copyist.4 As he matured as a printmaker, Fialetti diversified into a variety of genres and formats, including a number of portraits for book dedications, religious and mythological figures, and fully illustrated books. His book production is of great interest as it is demonstrative not only of his increasing skill as an illustrator and etcher, but also of his wide influence in varied intellectual and social spheres (aristocratic audiences for his books on sport, love and allegory, artistic audiences for his drawing manuals, and scientific/medical audiences for his anatomies). It is also surprising that the contribution he made to the history of the book in Venice has been so long overlooked and overshadowed. While the

1 2

A. von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, v. 38: Italian Artists, Odoardo Fialetti, New York 1983. O. Fialetti, The Martyrdom of St Sebastian, after Tintoretto. Etching, 240x151mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1874,0808.582] O. Fialetti, St Sebastian, after Tintoretto. Etching, 244x150mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Unmounted Roy, W,9.108] This copy is inferior to the mounted copy, and the edges have been slightly damaged. Neither copy of this etching in the British Museum is watermarked O. Fialetti, St Sebastian, after Tintoretto. Etching, 243x180mm. Rotterdam. 3 O. Fialetti, The Wedding Feast at Cana, after Tintoretto. Etching, 360x435mm, 1612. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Imp, W,9.103] 4 Fialetti has often been regarded solely as a copyist. While he does copy many works, including those of his master (as in this instance), and encourages copying with his drawing and pattern books, his own style is not based on copying but on the Bolognese tradition of drawing after life and learning based on studio models.

56

changing role of the artist necessitates such a variety in career, and thus one could argue that Fialetti was a representative sample of this new artist, it is imperative to remember that the number of artists capable of creating such a large and diverse oeuvre is very small, and the number who successfully completed such an extensive body of works even smaller. Also in the context of his oeuvre, Fialetti is characteristic of a particular type of artist, very different from his Cinquecento predecessors who relied almost solely on commissions for paintings, who was forced to diversify his output throughout the painted and printed media because of both a changing art market and a growing interest in the printed medium. Fialetti took a clear stand in the debate between disegno and colorito, as can be noted by the clear shift in his oeuvre from painted works to prints and his interest in providing etchings and engravings for instructional treatises (not only drawing, but illustrations for treatises on fencing, the construction of city fortifications, and anatomy). This chapter will examine in detail the progression of Fialettis printed works divided into three periods of production, in the context of an evolving and often easily influenced style, from his early prints after Tintoretto through to his mature printed books, and will also examine his contacts and liaisons within the Venetian book trade.

2. The Early Period (1594 1608) Odoardo Fialetti is first listed as a printmaker in Venice in 1596,5 only two years after the death of his master, which suggests he was experimenting with the medium during his time in Tintorettos workshop. According to Ridolfi, Tintorettos instruction to the young Fialetti was that it was necessary to draw and then draw some more... that disegno was

F. Benvenuti, Odoardo Fialetti, Grove Dictionary of Art, http://www.groveart.com , 2008.

57

that which gives grace and perfection to pictures.6 As discussed by G. van der Sman, print publication in the latter half of the Cinquecento tended to be subordinate to that of books... selling prints was a sideline.7 A growing interest in the printed medium helped raise the status of the print publisher by about 1560,8 which was followed by the arrival of the Sadeler family, whose Northern methods of production helped raise the profile of this enterprise in Venice after their arrival in c. 1596.9 Both of these events would have a direct impact on Fialettis oeuvre. Fialettis production of single prints, or short series of prints, occur primarily in his early and middle periods, and as he grew in reputation and skill, his prints shifted towards longer series for books, that is, more prestigious commissions.10

2.1. The Early Single Prints It was most likely during this formative period that he created the engraving after St Sebastian [Fig. 3.1] which is undated. The engraving bears a signature at the lower right on a rock (a device Fialetti would use throughout his early career, but especially in paintings), which reads: Jacobis Tintoreti Pin. / Odoardus Fialettus / Inci.11 The script is almost juvenile in its lack of regularity and flourished capitals and the print does not

C. Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dellArte, vol. II, Padua (Tipografia e Fonderia Cartallier) 1837, reprinted in 2000, 248. ... il vecchio soggiunse, che dovesse disegnare, e ancora disegnare: stimando con ragione che il disegno fosse quello che desse la grazia e la perfezione alla pittura. 7 G. van der Sman, Print Publishing in Venice in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century, Print Quarterly XVII, 2000, 233. 8 Ibid. 9 G. van der Sman, Print Publishing in Venice in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century, 240. 10 Though his commissions for longer treatises were more prestigious, Fialettis single prints and shorter series remained popular, especially his copy after Tintorettos Wedding at Cana, which was discussed by artists visiting Venice as late as Sir Joshua Reynolds in his Italian Sketchbook [BM, 201.a.9-10] 11 For an explanation of the difference between the role of artists and printmakers signing works with invenit (the artist who drew or painted the original), fecit (also incidit or sculpsit indicating the engraver or etcher) and excudit (or formis, naming the publisher who owned the plates), see E. Lincoln, The Invention of the Italian Renaissance Printmaker, New Haven and London 2000, pp.6-8.

58

bear the usual interlocked OF monogram of later years. Similar script appears at the bottom of the 1612 Wedding at Cana (also after Tintoretto), which suggests that this is Fialettis hand. Fialettis etching is, in this instance, very true to Tintorettos use of chiaroscuro: that is the tenebrous effects for which the artist is recognised can also be seen in the work of his pupil. St Sebastian is not entirely anatomically accurate, with his muscular left arm curved impossibly behind a tree branch and the right leg supporting the weight of the figure on a poorly delineated foot. This early work does, however, give insight into the beginnings of his characteristic style, including the use of cross-hatching with the use of central dots the so-called dot in lozenge (though this image does not use them as clearly or consistently as he would in later works, especially in his designs for Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae).12 Additionally, there is not the same differentiation between dark and light gradations that would characterise his mature style.

The Tintoretto original is one of the works completed for the Scuola Grande di San Rocco, and still hangs on the wall next to a canvas of San Rocco.13 Tintorettos painting is characteristic of his later works and a particularly late Cinquecento taste for his looser style, and the figure of the saint is dramatically illuminated from the right against a dark, non-descript background. There are brief brushstrokes which suggest the figure is leaning against a tree, but the economy of the artists style during this period and his reliance on heavy chiaroscuro restricts our view and understanding of the landscape or ground in which this figure is positioned. Only the arrow lodged above St Sebastians head and left
12

For further information see: M. Bury, The Print in Italy: 1550 1620, exh. cat., British Museum, London 2001. For further information on printing and etching, see: S. Massari and F. Negri Arnoldi, Arte e Scienza dellIncisione, Urbino 2005, and G. Mariani, ed., Le tecniche calcografiche dincisione indiretta: Acquaforte, Acquatinta lavis ceramolle, Rome 2005. 13 G. Romanelli, The Scuola Grande di San Rocco, Milan, 1995, Sala Superiore.

59

arm truly indicates that there is any mass behind the figure. In addition to changing incidental details including the sharpness and weight of the drapery, the number of arrows and the width of the image, Fialetti has aged St Sebastian dramatically from Tintorettos figure of a young boy, appearing to be only 16 or 17 years of age with a slender body dependent on the vertical axis and a small head, to a more powerful figure appearing to be 25 to 30 years of age with a powerful physique. Fialettis figure is Christlike in his appearance, and the artist seems to be more interested in exploring the dynamism of the pose and the musculature which already show a competence and interest in anatomy beyond the anatomical shorthand used by Palma Giovane and Tintoretto14, as opposed to the emotive potential and vulnerability of the figure as emphasised in the painted original. Additionally Fialetti changes the orientation of the figure, trying to balance out the strong vertical by tilting the torso of the figure further to the right. The way in which Fialetti alters the composition also speaks to his growing independence from his master: as discussed by L. Olmstead Tonelli, the first stage of learning disegno was to copy the works of Renaissance masters, and that the closer ones copy came to the original, the better.15

Beyond the subject of St Sebastian himself one gains an insight into Fialettis early print style, and indeed the style of many young printmakers, in his need to fill the background space with often extraneous detail. The tree directly to the right of the figure shows a

14

Tintorettos anatomical shorthand is best viewed in his drawings, with his use of short chalk strokes against a squared grid to define the musculature. J. Tintoretto, Study of a standing figure. Charcoal on paper, 262x140cm. [BM, Italian Roy XVIc, 1913,0331.198] 15 L. Olmstead Tonelli, Academic Practice in the Sixteen and Seventeenth Centuries, in Children of Mercury: The Education of Artists in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, exh. cat., Brown University 2/3/84 30/3/84, Providence 1984, 97-98.

60

very interesting pattern of shading, which betrays Fialettis interest in anatomy: he has used roughly diamond-shaped and triangular patches of parallel lines in varying directions next to one another which are highly reminiscent of the shading he would later use for the muscles (of the arm and upper thigh in particular) in his own compositions and anatomies for Casseri, Spieghel and potentially Vesalius (as discussed in Chapter IV). The leaves in the background are very dark in comparison to his later works, which would demonstrate a preference for the light, airy and almost sketched style popular with the Carracci.

Another early etching whose figures and foliage bear a debt to his early exposure to the Carracci-influence in Bologna is that of Venus and Cupid [Fig. 3.2].16 Unlike the St Sebastian, this work is dated by the inscription OPVS / 1598 on a rock at the lower right of the picture. The theme of the work is one which he would revisit for the 1617 Scherzi dAmore for Baron Roos, and shows Venus turning from Cupid as he stretches up to kiss her17. The detail in this image is greater than that he would display in his later works, and he seems primarily interested in texture, especially that of the foliage in the background, and the skin of Venus and Cupid. The background of the image is very sketchy and lightly delineated with minimal shading through parallel lines and crosshatching. The trees in the background and the shapes of the leaves (formed by curvilinear strokes) are reminiscent of the Carracci. Much of Fialettis landscape is informed by the Bolognese artists; however his connections with the academy are tenuous at best, and

16

O. Fialetti, Venus and Cupid. Etching, 175x120mm, 1598. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.22] There is no visible watermark. 17 Another example of the theme as explored by Fialetti is the Venus kissing Cupid in the Graphische Sammlung Albertina. Grey pencil with red on paper, 185x120mm. [GSA, Inv.2204, SB252]

61

seem to be informed primarily through his earliest master, Giovanni Battista Cremonini.18 In particular, the clouds delineated solely by a minimum number of overlapping curved lines, and horizontal bars defining the sky are characteristic of Fialettis style.19 When compared to the later Scherzi dAmore, it becomes apparent that Fialettis early technique is rough but detailed and careful. That is, he uses very fine lines in all instances and does not tend to vary their width for dramatic purpose, or for economy of shading or line. The figure of Venus as portrayed throughout the Scherzi dAmore varies in quality and detail, whereas his earlier style shows much more consistency.

2.2. Nicoletto Giganti and the Scola, overo, Teatro A work which comes at the transition between his early and middle periods is the lengthy Scola, overo, Teatro by Nicoletto Giganti, often referred to as the Book of Fencing [Figs. 3.3-3.7].20 The work was reprinted in 1608, and then subsequently three times in German and French between 1608 and 1619.21 The engraved portrait of Giganti is of the style of his later engraved portraits, with the figure in a central pendant and surrounded by attributes, in this case, weapons and objects of military rule (swords, lances, breastplates, gloves, and even a sculptural torso). Nicoletto Giganti is identified in text surrounding the
18

C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice. Vite de Pittori Bolognesi. Bologna 1678, 301. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3] V. Maugeri Odoardo Fialetti, Dizionario biographico degli Italiani, v.47, 1997, 322. 19 This detail in particular will become crucial in differentiating the designs of Fialetti, Francesco Valegio, and Giacomo Valegio, all of whom provided illustrations for the 1625 illustrated Venetian edition of Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata, some of which are signed and some of which are not. 20 N. Gigante, Scola, overo Teatro: nelquale sono rappresentate diverse maniere, e modi di parare, e di ferire di spada sola, e di spada, e pugnale; dove ogni studioso portra essercitarsi e farsi prattico nella professione dellArmi, Venetia (Gio. Antonio, & Giacomo de Franceschi) 1606. [BL, Rare Books, c.77.a.23] A second copy of this book can be found in the Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna, and is reproduced as the Book of Fencing in v. 38 of the Illustrated Bartsch (142 184). Each page is 130 x 216 mm, and pages of text are not reproduced. The order given by Bartsch is incorrect when compared to the 1606 British Library copy. 21 I have not come across any of the subsequent printings, however just as Giganti supposedly took much of his text from Salvator Fabris earlier work on fencing, it may be that the later copies are reprints after Giganti and do not contain Fialettis original illustrations.

62

pendant, NICOLETTO GIGA/NTI VINICIANO, and is shown facing the viewer.22 Like his other engraved portraits, the head appears slightly too large for the body, and his shoulders are particularly small and sloping. On an architectural frame barely visible at the top of the work, is the inscription: VS. VS. __18 / ODOAR. FiALET. BON. / DELI. ET. EX attributing the work to Fialetti, and identifying him as Bolognese. This classification is uncommon for the artist, and only appears in a few paintings, due probably to his stronger identification with the Venetian artistic tradition as learned under Tintoretto. The number 18 is enigmatic in this context but is preceded by a slight irregularity in the print, which suggests that the print may have faded, or that any preceding text or numbers have been scratched away by use or werent printed because of imperfection in the plate or paper. It may be that the number is relevant to the print run, however its presence in the British Library copy negates the idea that it relates to a later printing of the treatise. Stylistically, the Book of Fencing bears many similarities to Fialettis middle period works, with the distinctive OF. F. monogram23 on all but one of the 42 plates, and containing figures which are of a similar facial type to several figures in his paintings for SS. Giovanni e Paolo of the same year; it betrays an interest in anatomy, but is also indicative of his youth and lack of total competence in the exacting structure of the human body. Of particular note is the deep chiaroscuro, which mimics that found in the undated Allegory with Religious and Other Figures, as discussed later in this chapter.

22 23

In this context, Fialetti uses Viniciano as a substitute for Veneziano or Venetiano. For variations on Fialettis monogram, please see G. Milesi, Dizionario degli Incisori, 1982, 96. He records five variants, however, I have only come across three of them, and a fourth is known to have been added to at least one print (which is admittedly by Fialetti) at a later date.

63

The book is a manual of fencing movements and stances practiced by two men duelling or, in four instances, demonstrated by a single figure. The work is not intended as a basic vocabulary, but rather as a more in-depth explanation of Italian rapier technique for an experienced fencer. The book is prefaced by a lengthy letter to the reader by Giganti, describing fencing as a science, divided into speculative and practical parts.24 The men are shown either undressed or in short trousers, to emphasise Fialettis interest in the muscles of the human body, and also to demonstrate the injuries and means of killing ones opponent with a sword or dagger. The work is graphic in its depiction of injury, showing a rapier through the eye or chest and blood spouting profusely to the ground. Fialetti experiments with perspective in the tiled floor and blank wall behind, using the grid he has laid out to create depth in the composition and placement of the figures.25 In several instances, Fialetti demonstrates the consequences of one opponent shifting forward or back, and the difference in injury sustained.26 Frequently, the text on the verso of the plates is visible through the print, as are the bars of engraved ornament. Fialettis etchings directly relate to the text surrounding them, and typically each plate is separated by one page of text. For example, on the back of page 22, one can clearly read DELLA CONTRACAVATIONE / DENTRO DELLA SPADA.27 The text is divided into 42 sections, beginning with guards and counter-guards, and tempo, and ending with duelling

24 25

N. Giganti, Scola, overo, Teatro, b-b3(r). No. 1, Appendix III. The grid pattern is reminiscent of Fialettis debt to Tintoretto and his methods of drawing. 26 This translates as: on the inside contracavatione with the sword. In particular, pages 20 and 22 of the BL copy are indicative of this idea, with the right opponent shifting forward and increasing the depth of sword penetration in his eye. Also, pages 30 and 38 demonstrate this idea, as the right opponent leans back in the first image, stabbing the chest of the other, while in page 10 he turns and lunges, stabbing his rival in the eye. Page numbers refer to the BL copy unless stated. 27 A contracavatione is a term used in Italian rapier fencing, in which one responds to the cavazione (the changing of lines by moving the sword from one side of the opponents blade to the other), as defined by T. Leoni in the Italian Rapier Glossary, http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierGlossary.shtml , 2007.

64

techniques using both a rapier and dagger.28 This clear visibility of text on the verso of images suggests that the paper is of low quality, which has implications regarding the sum Giganti may have invested in this project (and thus the amount paid to Fialetti).

2.3. An Undated Allegorical Print An undated work which looks to be part of Fialettis early period is the complicated Allegory with Religious and Other Symbols [Fig. 3.8].29 The work is characteristic of his early style, with dramatic shading and a focus on volumetric forms and very fine crosshatching. The patronage of the image and its purpose are not immediately clear from the text or the figures included, though it may be a devotional image or an allegory for a book. The two central figures are Elijah (labelled S.E.L.P) on the left, and St Augustine with his crosier on the right, and whose mitre is inscribed S.S.A. They are surmounted by a cherub holding a chain aloft and bearing a banner,30 perhaps linking both old and new forms of monasticism (given in particular the Carmelite history tracing their order back to the Old Testament prophet). Each figure gestures to a shield, the left one bearing an arm with a sword, star and crescent, while the right contains a small cross at the top of seven bends. The left shield may represent the new Carmelite shield adopted in 1595, depicting

28

DELLE GVARDIE E CONTROGVARDIE, 2 and DEL TEMPO, E DELLA MISVRA, 4, both from N. Giganti. 29 O. Fialetti, Allegory with Religious and Other Symbols. Etching, 229x373mm, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna. The print is signed Odoardus Fialettus / dilli: ex:, much in the style of the St Sebastian. 30 This phrase contains some errors in the Latin and is roughly translated as: This fiery chain of love makes us related, or This fiery chain of love binds us. Much of Fialettis Latin is of variable quality, as there are several cases of misspelling and variations in grammar when compared to the vulgate, as outlined in the following footnotes. For further information on engravings for religious orders, see: M.J. Zucker, Early Italian Engravings for Religious Orders, Zeitschrift fr Kunstgeschichte 56, 1993, 366-384.

65

the hand of Elijah grasping a flaming sword.31 The shield on the right is more complicated, as Fialetti is unclear whether the bends are intended to be of different colours.32 There are also putti with a crown and a helmet (left and right respectively)33 between the men and the figures of Charity (who nurses three infants) and Fortitude (who supports a broken column). Both female figures bear a resemblance to his Venus in the 1598 Venus and Cupid, again suggesting an early dating for this work. Central to the image is a radiant oval in which the crucifixion is pictured in front of Jerusalem, with a monk reaching up to touch the feet of Christ, in what appears to be a typically mendicant vision. Also in that pendant are the sun and moon with six stars, reflecting the sun shown on the costumes of Elijah and the figure of Charity, and the moon on St Augustine and the figure of Fortitude, adding credence to the apocalyptic quality of this scene.

In addition to the figures, the ribbons of text which run throughout the picture add another level of complexity past the obvious allegorical iconography (flames, chains, the ladder, wheels, and so forth).34 A majority of the text refers back to biblical verses in
31

A. Archdale King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, London 1955, 238. I must thank Mr J. Hammond for his assistance in interpreting the potential Carmelite implications of this print, including Elijahs shield. He also indicated that in a number of instances, the sword is shown lacking flames, as seen here. For further information on the Carmelites and Elijah, see: F. Andrews, The Other Friars, Woodbridge 2006, 768. R. Koch, Elijah the Prophet, Founder of the Carmelite Order, Speculum 34, 1959, 547-560. J. Cannon, Pietro Lorenzetti and the History of the Carmelite Order, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 50, 1987, 18-28. T.S.R. Boase, A Seventeenth Century Carmelite Legend Based on Tacitus, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3, 1939-1940, 107-118. A. Jotischky, The Carmelites and Antiquity, Oxford 2002, 138. Jotischky notes that it was St Augustine who developed the notion of Elijah as a Christian forerunner and a symbol of paradise. 32 The shield does not match any Fialetti gives in his Habiti, nor does it appear in MarcAntonio Ginannis LArte del Blasone of 1756. It does bear a similarity the Cistercian crest as shown in the Habiti, but the bends are not of different colours, and the cross is an additional ornament. M.A. Ginanni, LArte del Blasone, Venezia (Gugliemo Zerletti) 1756, republished in Westmead 1971. 33 These devices are both similar to the crown and helmet of a Marquis, as illustrated and described in Ginannis work, suggesting a partial identification for the patron or donor. M.A. Ginanni, LArte del Blasone, nos. 834 and 842, 315. 34 The text can be divided roughly into six registers throughout the image, and each ribbon is mirrored by a partner on the other side. For a transcription, see No. 2, Appendix III.

66

Ezekiel (Ezech.), Proverbs (Prov.), Nehemiah (2 Esdra), Psalms (Ps), the Gospels According to Matthew (Mat.) and Luke (Luca), Deuteronomy (Deut.), and Revelation (Apoc.). Much of the text is directly taken from the books named, however Fialetti is inconsistent with his identification of the source; for example, Ezech 20. C. refers to Ezekiel 1:20, whereas Prov. 31. C. refers to Proverbs 31. In several cases, the books listed do not correspond with the text given (in the cases of Deuteronomy, Matthew and Luke in particular). Charity, for example, is surmounted by a reference to 1 Peter 4:8, ... love covers a multitude of sins; fortitude is similarly described: she is clothed with strength and dignity.
35

The symbolism between the wheels and ladder are equally

transparent in the context of Ezekiel (on the left and right wheel are brief quotations of 1:20 and 1:19 respectively, while the ladder contains a partially unidentified fragment, and a quotation from 1:21).36 Elijah holds up an extract from Nehemiah, [those who carried materials] did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, while St Augustine carries a line from Proverbs, in her hand she holds the distaff.37 Elijahs quote is potentially related to the newly adopted Carmelite device and motto with zeal I am zealous for the Lord God of Hosts.38

The final line of identifiable text is the least specific to the complex allegory portrayed, and is taken from Psalm 16: [Keep me as the apple of your eye;] hide me in the shadow of your wings.39 Given the theological complexity of the image, it is safe to assume that
35

Latin is taken from the Vulgate and varies slightly from the text as engraved by Fialetti. The Holy Bible, 1899, 1 Peter 4:8. No. 3, Appendix III. The Holy Bible, 1899, Proverbs 31:25. 36 The Holy Bible, Ezekiel 1:19-21. No. 3, Appendix III. 37 The Holy Bible, Nehemiah 4:17 and Proverbs 31:19. No. 3. Appendix III. 38 A. Archdale King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, 238. See also J. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, London 1964 1970, 476. 39 The Holy Bible, Psalms 16:8. No. 3, Appendix III.

67

this may have been a devotional image for a religious audience, or an allegorical print prefacing a tract or commentary, perhaps for the Carmelites. The text may indicate a particular interest or devotion of a congregation or donor, or may simply be intended to support an apocalyptic monastic vision in which both the figures of Elijah and St Augustine are linked by the supporting figures and actions.

3. The Middle Period (1608 1619) and Il vero modo et ordine Only two years after the completion of the Scola, overo, Teatro, Fialetti created his most enduring work, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parti et membra del corpo humano [Figs. 3.9-3.53], published in Venice by Justus Sadeler, for Signor Don Cesare dEste, the Duke of Modena and Reggio.40 As far as scholars are aware, this is the earliest

40

Many copies of this book exist in libraries and collections throughout the world. The book was produced in two versions, a small edition and a large one, the latter of which is much rarer than the former. The terms small and large editions are historically used, but are misnomers, in that it appears that the large edition is the same size as the small edition but also contains an extra page of illustration. S. Welsh Reed and R. Wallace note that the collation and printing history of Fialettis publication are a bit obscure. Bartsch separately catalogued a large and small drawing book. The large book supposedly had an artist measuring human proportion. In Italian Etchers of the Renaissance and Baroque, exh. cat., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 24/1 2/4 1989, Boston, 1989, 249. Four copies of this book have been consulted in the preparation of this thesis, and each will be cited in different contexts, especially the copy in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, which contains marginalia from at least four different hands (pencil, black chalk and two variants of brown ink, one of which appears to be quite early, and is perhaps contemporary with the books original owner). Only one of the four copies consulted has any indication of previous ownership. In addition to the four complete copies, there is an incomplete mounted set of plates in the British Museum. The British Library copy has been cut down and set onto later supports, of approximately 228x152mm. O. Fialetti, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parte et membra del corpo humano, Venice 1608. [BL, Rare Books, 1560/3394] The copy from the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice, is of the same format as the London version, but as mentioned previously the marginalia make it a unique copy which is demonstrative of the purpose of the book, and its use throughout history by various owners. O. Fialetti, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parte et membra del corpo humano, Venice 1608. [BNM, D.041D.199] The Vatican copy also proves interesting for analysis. It is bound between copies of the Prima Elementa Picturae Idest Modus facilis delineandi omnes humani corporis partes, undated but given as being by Raphael (though as discussed in this chapter, the illustrations are copies after Fialetti), and Sebastien Le Clercs Principes de Dessein, also undated. O. Fialetti, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parte et membra del corpo humano, Venice 1608. [BAV, Cicognara.III.351, (book 2)] The British Museum copy comes from the Sir Hans Sloane collection, and according to record notes in the Museums database claims to be numbered as originally intended, omitting the later mistakes of Bartsch, including the alpha-numeric designations. This copy contains five fewer plates than the other editions consulted, and lacks the etchings after Palma. O. Fialetti, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parte et membra del

68

drawing book of its kind to come out of Venice.41 Fialetti was the only Italian etcher with whom Sadeler published work, thus attesting to Il vero modos importance in the history of the Venetian book trade.42 The historical significance is also attested to by its mention in many early biographies of the artist, who name it as one of his best works.43 Fialetti also worked with Marco Sadeler in his 1626 work depicting the costumes and arms of religious orders, De gli habiti religioni con le Armi, e breve Descrittion, dedicated to Madame Giovana Luillier, French ambassador.44 The drawing book was created in two different sizes, a small edition and a large one, both published in Venice in the same year. The editions are identical in content, with the exception of the addition of a plate illustrating the Studies of Human Proportions in the large edition.45 The small edition of Il vero modo is comprised of two title pages, two pages of the drawing studio and

corpo humano, Venice 1608. [BM, 163*.a.36, 2AA*.a.11.1-35] The bound copies are printed on watermarked paper, however in many instances only the countermarks are visible. In the case of copy 163*a.36, the watermark appears as an unclear design within a circle, and the letters which usually appear on the sides of the clover countermark are not visible. Incomplete sets of prints include images of varying quality. There is a loose copy of the Drawing Studio, etching 110x150mm, 1608. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.54], and mounted copies of the first and second Title Pages, Drawing Studio, and plates 22-26, and 28-31 [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.44, U,5.43, 1871,1209.460, and U,5.46-54]. The mounted prints appear to be from the same printing, based on paper quality and colour, while the loose Drawing Studio is from a separate copy. 41 Pattern books and model books had, of course, been in use for many years; however the concept of a drawing book for amateurs is a new one in this context. For more information on model books, see: F. Ames-Lewis, Model books and drawing books, Apollo 144, 1996, 59. 42 P. Snchal, Justus Sadeler Print Publisher and Art Dealer in Early Seicento Venice, Print Quarterly 7, 1990, 29. The only exception to this is a single etching published by Sadeler, designed by Paolo Farinati in 1567, as discussed by Snchal. 43 M. Boschini, La Carta del Navegar Pitoresco, Venetia (per li Baba) 1660 (reprint 1966), 503. No. 4, Appendix III. A. di Paolo Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, Bologna (Per lErede di Vittorio Benacci) 1666, 636. [BL, Rare Books, 660.a.6] No. 5, Appendix III. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 311. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3] No. 6, Appendix III. P.A. Orlandi, Labecedario pittorico dallautore ristampato, Firenze (Per Giorgio Ubaldi) 1731, 343. [NLS, NRR, SBA.539] No. 7, Appendix III. G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, Siena (Vincenso Pazzini Carli e Figli) 1771, 21. [BL, Rare Books, 277.e.6] No. 8, Appendix III. F. de Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, Venezia (co Tipi del Gondoliere) 1840, 356. [BL, Rare Books, 1402.k.5] No. 9, Appendix III. 44 O. Fialetti, De gli habiti religioni con le Armi e breve Descrittion, Venice 1626. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.1649] There is a second edition of this work published posthumously in French. O Fialetti, Briefve Histoire de lInstitution des Ordres Religieux, Avec les figures de leurs Habits, Paris 1658. [WEL, 51994/B] 45 A. von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, v. 38: Italian Artists, 321 (211 (298)).

69

progressive studies of the face, followed by another title page, and 31 pages of various studies of parts of the human body including arms, legs, sculptural torsos, faces, and grotesque heads. While there are no firm links between the Carracci and Fialetti, the arrangement and development of body parts reflects the studies of Agostino Carracci, though the images and techniques used by Fialetti are not taken directly from him.46 The book ends with two engravings by Palma Giovane, the first of the Holy Family, and the second of Christ Preaching, both of which are labelled as Palma fece in the upper right and centre of the prints respectively. These two plates are not included in any of the copies in the British Museum, which adds to the confusion of the order and contents of Fialettis original small drawing book.47 Fialettis known collaborations with Palma Giovane date to this period, and his reasons for including Palmas work at the end of the text seem to indicate that he held the artist in high regard in terms of composition and draughtsmanship. This, however, is incongruent with Palmas own view of himself as a rather poor draughtsman.48 Fialettis drawing book is intended to aid artists in the proper construction and depiction of the human face and body. There is no space devoted to costume, and only a page depicting varying expression in a series of heads which seem to be included for their varying physiognomy. Rather, Fialetti focuses his efforts on an economical style indebted to anatomical naturalism and antique sculpture (which he presumably would have studied during his visit to Rome, as well as through known casts in the Tintoretto studio).
46

R. Wittkower, The Drawings of the Carracci in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor Castle, London 1952, cat. nos. 130-133. 47 These plates are reproduced in Appendix I, and a concordance of page numbers in various editions of Il vero modo can be found in Appendix II. 48 For more information on Palmas draughtsmanship, see: L. Grassi, Note Sulle Grafica di Palma il Giovane, Arte Veneta XXXII, 1978, 262-271. D. Rosand, The Crisis of the Venetian Renaissance Tradition, LArte 11-12, 1970, 4-53.

70

The first page of eyes49 provides a systematic progression of lines and shapes for the delineation of the eye in profile and frontal views, building the complex structures from a very simplistic starting point. In this regard, the drawing book may seem as if it is geared more towards apprentices or enthusiasts, as opposed to use as a pattern book by more experienced artists. The second page of eyes provides different views of each eye in a finished state, and Fialetti continues to provide instruction in facial features and finished pages of features for the ears, nose and lips, as well as the lower half of the face before moving on to the full face, and various heads of different ages, with and without beards and hats. It should be noted that there are no female heads or torsos included in the small drawing book, which suggests that Fialetti was either uncomfortable with their design or was restricted in the number of pages he could produce and thus omitted the female figure as being of less consequence and importance than the male one.50 As the book progresses, the pages become slightly more crowded as he pays more attention to accurately depicting the musculature created by various attitudes, postures and angles. Interestingly, Fialetti himself used his patterns throughout his oeuvre, and this is especially apparent in his anatomy for Giulio Casseris 1627 Tabulae anatomicae, where the figures remain fully clothed in their skin except the parts they have been dissected back to reveal the internal anatomy, often resulting in a dissected torso with a depiction of muscular legs bent into a dynamic pose.51
49 50

Labelled as plate 1 or A.3, depending on the copy consulted. It is interesting, however, that some later copies after Fialetti, especially Isaac Fullers 1654 Vn libro da designiare contain studies of the female head, thus the artist was correcting what he saw as a deficit in Fialettis work. A copy of Fullers drawing book can be found in the British Museum [BM, 167*.b.40, 1973,0224.1-14] 51 The similarities between Il vero modo and Casseris De humani corporis libri decem are discussed in detail in Chapter IV.

71

As stated, all small copies of this book follow the same format though there are debates concerning pagination, and variant plates do exist. One such example is in the plate of the Artists Studio (A.2) in the Vatican copy. While the size, subject matter and artists monogram remain the same, there is an additional piece of printed text in the bottom centre of the work: No 208.52 The implications of this number are uncertain, and no other versions which have been consulted bear a similar signifier, indicating it could be anything from an overprinting, to the edition number, or size of the initial print run.

In addition to the similarities in his anatomies, the types of figures in Il vero modo, especially the man in a cap on the far left of plate C.2, are repeated throughout his painted works, most notably as the patron in the lower left corner of The miraculous payment of the boatmen in Santi Giovanni e Paolo, as discussed in the previous chapter. We can also make a clear parallel between the sculptural torsos and the backs of the boatmen in the mid-ground of the canvas. It should be noted that this painting dates from the period directly before the creation of the drawing book, therefore, it is probably most accurate to say that his painting style would directly inform the style of his printed works (and therefore the visual advice which he passed to future artists on good disegno in this volume). Here, Fialetti is an exponent of his own artistic style: he copies the male torsos accurately, as well as the features and proportions of the face and provides them as examples of proper drawing technique, instead of using solely classical models. In this sense his ideas not only reinforce his ideas of good disegno, but the burgeoning trend in

52

O. Fialetti, Il vero modo et ordine per dissegnar tutte le parte et membra del corpo humano, Venice 1608. [BAV, Cicognara.III.351, (book 2)]

72

Venice as propagated by the Tintoretto studio, which emphasised drawing for young artists.

Fialettis drawing book came at a time in Venetian history when the disegno-colorito debate was at its height. The Venetian Renaissance masters Titian, Tintoretto and Palma Giovane in particular were all masters of colour and were praised for it; however their drawing was sometimes considered to be poor in its execution and was ranked below colour in the importance of a picture. This earlier trend was noted best by Vasari (as recounted in his Lives of the Artists) when he supposedly quoted Michelangelo, saying [concerning Titian]: ... that his colouring and his style pleased him very much but that it was a shame that in Venice they did not learn to draw well from their studies with more method.53 By the early Seicento, it was seen as imperative for the young artist to study from studio drawings, plaster casts and statues, as well as from nature, particularly in order to understand the human figure and draw it well.54 Inherent in this was the study of human anatomy55, which would become paramount for many artists (especially those in Venice) including Fialetti and Palma (though Palma never fully mastered the human

53 54

G. Vasari, Lives of the Artists, vol. I, trans. and ed. by G. Bull, London 1965, 455. For further information on the importance of repetition and drawing in Seicento artistic practice, see: Children of Mercury: The Education of Artists in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, exh. cat., Brown University, 2/3/84 30/3/84, Providence 1984; M. Loh, New and Improved: Repetition as Originality in Italian Baroque Practice and Theory, The Art Bulletin 86, 2004, 477-504; J. Bolten, Method and Practice: Dutch and Flemish Drawing Books 1600 1750, Stuttgart 1985. 55 Anatomical instruction was discussed in the earliest statutes of the Accademia del Disegno in Florence. As cited in: L. Olmstead Tonelli, Academic Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 97. It was also discussed by Benvenuto Cellini, when he stated that the student should draw and learn the bones, for by memorising the skeleton one will never be able to make a figure with errors as cited in C. Roman, Academic Ideals of Art Education, in Children of Mercury, 84. Additional advice on the importance of anatomy comes from Lodovico Dolce, who in his 1557 Dialogo della Pittura, stated a good grasp of anatomy a field of knowledge which plays a very necessary role with the artist, since without bone structure the human figure cannot be modelled nor clothed in flesh. For further discussion on Dolces treatise, see: M.W. Roskill, Dolces Aretino and Venetian Art Theory of the Cinquecento, New York 1968.

73

figure, relying on a sort of anatomical-shorthand, used more-effectively by Tintoretto). Many such drawing books were produced in the early-mid 17th century, all giving roughly the same instruction in the drawing of the human figure divided into parts.56 Some also provided instruction on how to draw various costumes, including one after Titian.57 It should also be noted that such drawing books were indicative of the type of study carried out by the Carracci Academy in Bologna, which was based on drawing from nature (disegno dal naturale).58

The concept of a drawing book also played very heavily to the burgeoning interest in academies of art in Italy, and indeed throughout Europe.59 It was Lomazzo who laid out the knowledge in various disciplines that an apprentice would need to become an artist, providing rules and guidelines of proper practice, and thus combining the need for both learning and intuitive genius.60 Taddeo Zuccaro, another exponent of the art academy, suggested his pupils draw parts of the body, an alphabet of drawing.61 This idea is

56

In addition to Fialettis work, there are a number of significant drawing books, including two editions of the Palma and Giacomo Franco work, and one of a book after Raphael, though the designs are taken directly from Fialettis Il vero modo. Of these works, Fialettis is the earliest. G. Palma, Regole per Imparar a disegnar i corpi humani, Venice 1636. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.2113(b), 42-68] I. Palma, Regole per Imparar a Disegnar i Corpi Humani, Venice 1659 [BNM, D.040D.019] Raphael, Prima Elemento Picturae Idest Modus facilis delineandi omnes humani corporis, Venice. [BAV, Cicognara.III.351 (book 1)] 57 T. Vecellio (the Elder), S. Piobbe, ed., Habiti antichi overo raccolta di Figure delineate dal Gran Titiano e da C. Vecellio suo Fratello, Venice 1664. [BL, Rare Books, 810.i.3] 58 V. Maugeri, I manuali propedeutici al disegno, a Bologna e Venezia, agli inizi del Seicento, Musei Ferraresi Bollettino Annuale, 12, 1982, 146. For more information on the Carracci and their drawing practice, see: C. Goldstein, Visual Fact over Verbal Fiction: A Study of the Carracci and the Criticism, Theory, and Practice of Art in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, Cambridge 1988. 59 The formation of the academy is attributed to various sources including the intellectual circle of Leonardo in Milan (as discussed by C. Roman, Academic Ideals of Art Education, in Children of Mercury: The Education of Artists in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 81), however they all placed a shared emphasis on the importance of disegno. These ideals were later codified by Benvenuto Cellini in his treatise Sopra i principii e l modo dimparare larte del disegno, and by Gian Paolo Lomazzo in his Trattato dellarte della pittura of 1584. 60 C. Roman, Academic Ideals of Art Education, Children of Mercury, 87-91. 61 C. Roman, Academic Ideals of Art Education, Children of Mercury, 91.

74

exactly that which Fialetti provides in his drawing book, exemplifying the philosophy of beginning with simple shapes and features, and creating a complete and composite whole from these parts. Whether or not Fialetti was responding to both the Bolognese tradition of the Carracci as well as the Central Italian interest in the academy is uncertain; however, it is possible to draw clear parallels between both and the illustrations contained within the drawing book. It is also possible to see the resonance of these ideas in Fialettis own illustration of the Drawing Studio, which shows apprentices of several ages drawing after casts of antique sculpture (including one torso and a bust that later appear in Il vero modo), and more experienced artists in the background working on canvases.62 Various disciplines necessary for the art of painting are included in the illustration, including a pair of compasses representing geometry, and the busts and casts of various parts of the body, which seem both to indicate the importance of antique sculpture and anatomy.63

Fialettis drawing book is potentially one of the most widely dispersed and influential works, having been copied in Italy, England the Northern Europe, as well as influencing a number of artists with its method (rather than its contents) of constructing a composite whole out of individual parts. As previously discussed, a number of the plates were copied for an undated drawing book after Raphael, found in the Biblioteca Apostolica

62

It has been suggested that the man sitting in profile view is in fact Tintoretto and that this is an illustration of his studio. 63 These objects also reflect the similarity of this studio to the Accademia del Disegno in Florence, in which students were said to have access to a libreria... including designs, models of statues, architectural plans, cartoons... as cited in L. Olmstead Tonelli, Academic Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, in Children of Mercury, 97. For a brief discussion of the importance of casts and drawings in the Venetian workshop, see M. Hochmann, Peintres et Commanditaires Venise (1540 1628), Paris and Padua 1992, 85, in which the author discusses in particular the casts in the Tintoretto workshop.

75

Vaticana.64 It should be noted that the plates which have been copied were not printed using Fialettis original metal plates: in several instances the copyist has omitted the dot in lozenge shading favoured by Fialetti, and has utilised a simpler style.65 Interestingly, the Prima Elementa Picturae has been bound with a copy of Fialettis Il vero modo66 and with a third book, Sebastian le Clercs Principes de Dessein.67 This third work is of a similar type, comprising studies of heads, emotions, male and female classical figures, putti and parts of the body, but the images are not taken from Fialettis drawing book.

Palmas drawing book68, Regole per Imparar a disegnar i corpi humani, provides an interesting comparison to Fialettis work, especially given that there are two engravings after Palma included in the end of the latter. In general, the illustrations in Palmas drawing book are much more chaotic, with a jumble of unintelligible legs against a dark background, each in a slightly different angle and position. Even in the pages where the body parts are separated enough for individual identification they do not contain the same sense of instruction as Fialettis works do: that is, they seem to be more virtuosic displays

64

Raphael, Prima Elementa Picturae Idest Modus facilis delineandi omnes humani corporis partes. The book is set up similarly to Fialettis drawing book, though the order of the pages is different. For a list of plates after Fialetti, see No. 10, Appendix III. 65 This is seen most notably the plate labelled C.7 (D.5 in Fialettis original) which illustrates the feet and lower legs, 66 [BAV, Cicognara.III.351, (book 2)] None of the plates have been cut or remounted, thus suggesting a particular interest by the owner in drawing manuals. 67 S. le Clerc, Principes de Dessein, par Seb. le Clerc, Chevalier Romain. Iohan Michael Probst. excud. Aug. Vind. [BAV, Cicognara, III.351, (book 3)] The work is undated. 68 The authorship of this book still remains uncertain. Both Palma il Giovane and Giacomo Franco have been suggested, and both are possible given that Franco could have added Palmas name at a later date to raise the profile of the drawing book, or Palma could have worked with Franco on its production as a rival book to that produced by Fialetti and Justus Sadeler. The first copy of this work appeared in 1611, however extant copies are rare compared to both later editions. In Italian Etchers of the Renaissance and Baroque, the authors note that most of the 27 etchings that can be attributed to Palma il Giovane including the 1611 John the Baptist in the Wilderness were used as illustrations for De excellentia et nobilitate delineationis libri duo (the title given to the book in its first imprint). S. Welsh Reed and R. Wallace, Italian Etchers of the Renaissance and Baroque, 251.

76

than drawing aid. The 1636 edition is considerably longer than the 1659, containing two pages for each subject, one in what appears to be an unfinished state and one finished to a high degree.69 Though Palma is credited with the design of the figures, it is Giacomo Franco whose name appears on the majority of pages as franco formis Cum privilegio or Giacomo franco forma con Privilegio.70 Giacomo Franco is similar figure to Odoardo Fialetti in many ways, but most importantly in that while he is a talented artist and draughtsman in his own right he is often overshadowed by the more famous figures with whom he worked, including Agostino Carracci and Palma il Giovane.71 The 1636 edition of Palmas drawing book was printed by Marco Sadeler, who also printed Fialettis De gli habiti religioni con le armi, e breve descrittione loro... of 1626.72 The 1659 edition of Palmas drawing book contains the same inscription on the title page as does the earlier version, however it adds Appresso Stefano Scolari a San Zulian Venetia 1659.73 Because the later edition is abbreviated, it suggests that Scolari may have purchased the plates from Marco Sadeler at some point after its initial printing. This is not uncommon in the history of the drawing book (or the history of the book in general) as plates were often appropriated into another authors work or copied, without any of the modern sense of plagiarism.74 This sort of transmission of the plates (reproduction

69

In addition to these extra pages, the order of pages differs between the two editions, the earlier one concentrating on the head, and moving systematically down the body to the arms, torso and legs. The later edition, in contrast, begins with a plate of facial features, and moves directly to arms, feet, and legs, before returning to the head. 70 G. Palma, Regole per Imparar a disegnar i corpi humani, 47-48. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.2113(b), 42-68] 71 C. Stefani, Giacomo Franco, Print Quarterly 10, 1993, 271-272. 72 O. Fialetti, De gli habiti religioni con le armi, e breve descrittione loro, Venice 1626. [BAV, Cicognara IV.1649] The frontispiece is engraved with Con licenza di Sopriori / IN VENETIA / del 1626 / a Instanza di / Marco Sadeler. G. Palma, Regole per Imparar a disegnar i corpi humani. [BAV, Cicognara IV.2113(b), 42] The frontispiece is engraved with Appresso Marco Sadeler. Marco is of unknown relation to Justus Sadeler. 73 I. Palma, Regole per Imparar a Disegnar i Corpi Humani, [BNM, D.040D.019] 74 This is a common occurrence, even in the oeuvre of Fialetti, as Casseris heirs sold the plates to Bucretius for the De humani corporis fabrica.

77

without the original authors knowledge, or in this case after his death) would be the case when Alexander Browne copied the core of Fialettis drawing book into his own: The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching.75 In addition to his influence on Alexander Browne, a number of other contemporary and later English artists and architects are thought to have consulted Fialettis drawing book. Perhaps most interestingly, it has been suggested that the analogy of a grammar of the body, separated into its constituent parts and reassembled into a meaningful whole influenced Inigo Jones on his trips to Italy in the early seventeenth century.76 Through his relation with Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, Jones most probably met Fialetti whilst he was in Italy, and took a part of his method for its obvious applications to architectural vocabulary.77 In the mid-seventeenth century, some time after Fialettis death, his influence again showed itself in an English artist, for whom there seems to have been a particular resonance between his style and the early modern aesthetic in England. Isaac Fuller (c. 1606 1672) published his own drawing book, Un Libro da Designiare in 1654 including the parts of the body, profiles, putti and a sea god, and based it largely on the work of Fialetti.78

75

A. Browne, The whole art of drawing, painting limning and etching. Collected out of choicest Italian and German authors, London 1660. [BL, Rare Books, C.123.f.22.] This work will be discussed in Chapter V. 76 J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art and the Practice of Drawing, The Art Bulletin 74, 1992, 247-270. For more information on the potential meeting of Fialetti and Inigo Jones, facilitated through Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, see Chapter V. Also see: D. Howarth, Lord Arundel and his Circle, New Haven and London 1985; D. Howarth Lord Arundel as Entrepreneur of the Arts, The Burlington Magazine 122, 1980, 690-692+694. 77 Ibid. 78 D.H. Solkin, Isaac Fullers Escape of Charles II: A Restoration Tragicomedy, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 62, 1999, 200. Solkin states that there are no surviving copies of Fullers drawing book; however there is in fact a copy in the British Museum. I. Fuller, Vn libro da designiare, London (Printed & Sold by P. Stent at the White Horse in Guildspur Streete betwixt Newgate & PyCorner) 1654. [BM, 167*.b.40, 1973,0224.1-14]

78

Northern examples of copies after Fialetti are common by circa 1630, and his plates are often included in sequence with the work of other authors, including Luca Ciamberlano.79 Of particular note is the drawing book of Jacob van der Heyden, Tyrocinia Artis Pictoriae.80 He utilises many of the same shapes in the construction of the eyes, but does not copy Fialettis plates exactly as others (including the earliest Netherlandish example by Jan Janssonius from 1616, the Diagraphis sive ARS DELINEATORIA).81 J. Bolten discusses this work as the first of its type to appear in the Netherlandish market, thus informing the later books coming from the North.82 Fialettis popularity comes from his interest in emphasis on disegno and thus the similarity in execution to the book of proportion by Albrecht Drer, perhaps resonating more in its visual language than previous treatises, including Lomazzos academic Trattato dellarte della pittura from 1584. Van der Heydens book is indicative of the general way in which Fialettis studies were copied, that is, the most recognisable plates (eyes, hands, legs, feet, etc.) were replicated and combined with studies by other artists, in this case Rubens.83 This format of course is very similar to that used by Fialetti, with his inclusion of two plates by Palma to provide exemplars and increase the profile of the work.

3.1. Tritons and Nereids


79

For a catalogue of Northern drawing books, see: J. Bolten, Method and Practice: Dutch and Flemish Drawing Books 1600 1750, Stuttgart 1985. Luca Ciamberlano also created a copy of Fialettis Horizontal Friezes, which will be discussed later in this chapter. 80 J. van der Heyden, Tyrocinia Artis Pictoriae 1634. [BL, Rare Books, 786.l.47]. 81 J. Jansz, Diagraphia sive ARS DELINEATORIA, In qua ad amuum propanuntur principia, necnon ratio lineamenta, Amstelodami (Ioannes Ianssonius) 1616. This work is discussed in J. Bolten, Method and Practice, pp. 119-121. 82 J. Bolten, Method and Practice, 119. 83 Van der Heyden signs his plates with a monogram, IH, but attributes works taken directly from other artists (as opposed to plates influenced by others) with a similar monogram. In this case, pages 24 and 25 are inscribed with PPR, and the plates (of male and female heads in various costumes) are finished to a much higher degree than the rest of the book.

79

Though the drawing book is one of Fialettis most recognisable contributions to the history of art and the history of the book in Venice, his printed oeuvre grows exponentially in number in the following ten years (roughly defining his middle period 1608 1619), producing no fewer than five books and a handful of engravings for various purposes. There are also a number of undated works which could fall into this period of intense graphic activity based on style and similarity in subject to his reliably dated works. Of the three books which closely followed Il vero modo, two are of the pattern or model book type (Tritons and Nereids and Landscapes) and one is addressed to a more aristocratic audience (Hunts).84

Tritons and Nereids [Fig. 3.54] is a set of six plates, in which every two plates joins to form three continuous friezes with figures in a variety of attitudes. The first plate contains a dedicatory engraving on a banner held up by a Triton, and naming Fialetti as the artist in the upper left corner, with the patrons coat of arms held up by the farthest left Nereid.85 The date is not included in this inscription, and it can perhaps be assumed that it was written either on a now lost title page, or underneath the first image.86 With the exception of the second and fourth plates of the series, each is unique and is created so as to be joined with the previous one, as if part of a frieze. There does not appear to be a
84

A. von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, v. 38: Italian Artists, 222-223 (272-273). Tritons and Nereids are 121x460 mm in size, and are currently in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. O. Fialetti, Tritons and Nereids: 5. Frieze with putti at left on a dolphin; a centaur at centre stops a sea-horse; a satyr at right holds a Nereid in his arms. Etching, 118x501mm, 1610. [BM, Italian XVIIc Unmounted Roy, U,5.40] It becomes important here to differentiate between a model book and a drawing book: the former is aimed at the young artist, and later, the drawing enthusiast, while the model or pattern book is used primarily by the more mature practitioner. For a further discussion of the difference between drawing and model books, see: C. Amornpichetkul, Seventeenth-Century Italian Drawing Books: Their Origin and Development, in Children of Mercury, 109. 85 See No. 11, Appendix III. 86 There is a trace of handwritten text underneath the far left corner of the print, cut three-quarters of the way through the words. It appears to read: Odoardo Fialetti [...] 16__. The inscription for this must be verified through the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

80

specific narrative, but rather the running theme of a game of love, with Tritons and Nereids cavorting amidst a scene of sea monsters and putti. The style is very light, with minimal chiaroscuro throughout, with the exception of the fifth plate, which is much darker than the rest. Interestingly, it is also the most diverse compositionally, containing a half-submerged horse struggling against a fearsome man and a violent abduction of a Nereid at the right. In this print, Fialetti experiments with depicting figures underwater, as the putto who grasps the tail of the dolphin swims, with one leg kicking below the surface, a difficult effect to capture in the printed medium. The figures are very much in keeping with Fialettis interests in the human form, especially visible in the muscular backs of the Tritons. Though they have been exaggerated to accentuate the tapering of the waist into the marine figure, the influence of ideas from his drawing book (and therefore earlier painted works) is clearly visible.

Tritons and Nereids provides us with a very interesting study in Fialettis working practice as what appears to be a study for Arion or a Triton exists in the Nationalmuseum of Sweden,87 as discussed in Chapter II. The torsion of the upper body combined with the soft facial features seems to be inspired by Raphaels Triumph of Galatea, which Fialetti could have seen and studied during his visit to Rome before beginning his period of study with Tintoretto. The theme of Galatea and more generally of Tritons and Nereids was

87

Arion, red chalk, 131x175mm, NM 55/1973, Nationalmuseum. P. Bjurstrm, Italian Drawings: Venice, Brescia, Parma, Milan, Genoa (Drawings in Swedish Public Collections, 3), Stockholm 1979, no. 66. It should also be noted that the handwriting in which Fialettis name is written bears a striking resemblance to that at the bottom of the first print in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts copy of Tritons and Nereids. The identification of this figure as Arion seems to be a traditional identification, and can only be linked to the dolphin and the lyre/chitara. The mythological poet is said to have sung songs to Apollo and thrown himself into the sea (rather than be killed by raiders), only to be saved by a dolphin who took him to safety. This differs from the series in that there are no identifiable scenes from classical mythology in the finished Tritons and Nereids prints by Fialetti.

81

popular during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, especially among the Carracci academy, who explored the theme in a similar drawing after Raphael of a Triton Sounding a Conch Shell.88 Annibales drawing is very active and more finished state than Fialettis Arion, focusing on the muscular torso and dynamism of the pose. Again, it must be stressed that any connection between the Carracci and Fialetti is based in stylistic similarities and the early association with Cremonini. The theme of Tritons and Nereids would also be repeated by later artists, including Isaac Fuller, who borrowed ideas from these and similar prints for his study of Frieze with two sea-men and horses.89

3.2. Book of Landscapes The second of the books produced in 1610 is that of Landscapes [Figs. 3.55-3.64], for Alvise Priuli. It is comprised of a title page and twelve country scenes of varying qualities, none of which are signed or bear the artists monogram.90 The landscapes are clearly influenced by those of the Carracci, with parallel lines for the sky, lightly sketched backgrounds and trees with a horizontal focus and leaves formed through a number of c-shaped curves. They are also influenced by Pozzoserrato, who was active in the Tintoretto studio.91 The foreground of each of the scenes is typically very dark, both heavily shaded and with slightly thicker lines, showing a tree and often a small figure to

88

Annibale Carracci, Triton Sounding a Conch Shell. Black chalk on blue paper, 386x243mm, 1597-1602. [Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1970.15] 89 I. Fuller, Frieze with two sea-men and horses, etching, 225x324mm, c. 1650-1660. [BM, British XVIIc Mounted Roy, D,7.31] 90 A. von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch: v. 38, 185-197 (310-314). The title page reads: Al Illm Sig.r Sig.r et Pro Coll:mo il Sig.r Alvise Priuli / del Ill.mo Signor Gieronimo / Odoardo Fialetti Dona e Dedica. underneath the banner is the Priuli coat of arms, surrounded on either side by Fortune and Prudence. Like Tritons and Nereids, it is undated. The prints are small, 56x92mm each (with no indication of margin size), and the only complete copy appears to be in the Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna. The Illustrated Bartsch gives a descriptive title for each of the plates, but these appear to be a modern convention. 91 W. Wegner, Drawings by Pozzoserrato, Master Drawings 1, 1963, 27-32 + 82-86.

82

add depth. The scenes take place in hilly, forested locales, often with rivers, lakes and bridges, in addition to the small farmhouses or towers, which are characterised by their unusual fenestration and variety in shape (some are circular, others square with many outbuildings and extensions). Fialetti also includes ruins in some occasions to add to visual interest of the scene. His figures are of varied types including farmers engaged in manual labour, and peasants fishing, boating, or bringing home game after hunting. All the figures are delineated with an economy of line, and often contain no facial features or expression (due primarily to the small size of the figures). The two most interesting characters appear on the eighth print, and appear to be in full length robes, though whether these are clerical or not is uncertain. The right figure is pointing through the rocky outcrop, perhaps up the hill toward the small building at the top, which appears to have a cross to the left (though given the sketchiness of the style, this could also be a tree).

In a set of six previously undescribed prints traditionally attributed to Fialetti in the British Museum (five of which I have identified as belonging to Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa of 1624) one finds precedence for a religious figure dwarfed by the scope of the countryside in the Landscape with Buildings, where there is a small Capuchin monk at the left.92 This idea is one of contemporary Seicento landscape

92

O. Fialetti, Landscape with Buildings. Etching, 74x207mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.20] This print, and the other five with which it is grouped are discussed fully later in this chapter. The traditional attribution to Fialetti comes from the bequest of these images, along with a number of other works by Fialetti, from Campbell Dodgson to the British Museum between 1925 and 1932. Only one of the prints (the upper half of Figura Quinta) is signed with a slightly different monogram to that traditionally used by Fialetti (which is not original to the print as it is given in either edition of Tensini). The concrete attribution of these images to Fialetti, and more specifically to his illustrations for Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa of either 1624 or 1630, came after studying both books. Because the

83

painting, placing figures as if they were an afterthought to justify the work and the genre. There is no narrative or continuity in these landscapes; rather they constitute a grouping of individual scenes, with no congruence in locale. These landscapes, like many of Fialettis other creations, were re-invented and re-used in a variety of painted and printed works, most notably the SS. Giovanni e Paolo painting of The miraculous payment of the boatmen, with its stepped hills to the left and church in the upper right background (complete with arched windows as in some of the buildings in the Landscapes book). In the tradition of Vesalius, they also make an appearance in the backgrounds of the illustrations for the anatomies of Casseri and Spieghel.93 In this way, Fialetti demonstrates his own purposes for the creation of a landscape pattern book, using it in a variety of situations. His landscape book can also be seen as very advanced for the period, as the landscapes he created were not done under the guise of history or religious pictures (as was common for other artists of the Seicento and Settecento).

3.3. The Hunts The final series of prints dated firmly to 1610 is the book of Hunts [Figs. 3.65-3.67], which may be incomplete.94 Three different hunts are illustrated, A Stag Hunt, A Wild Boar Hunt and A Bear Hunt. There is no indication of patronage on the plates themselves, and there is no title page prefacing the prints. In fact, even Fialettis monogram is conspicuously absent, the only text being: Iustus Sadeler excu. on the

original plates were used in the reprint of 1630 (Venice, Antonio Bariletti e Fratelli), it is impossible to determine from which edition this set was cut. 93 The 1627, 1632 and 1645 editions differ in their backgrounds as discussed in Chapter IV. 94 A. von Bartsch, The Illustrated Bartsch, v. 38: Italian Artists, 228-230 (276). Each print is 148x235mm, and the series can be found in the Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna.

84

Boar Hunt and Iustus Sadeler excudit on the Bear Hunt.95 Of the three, the Stag Hunt is the least detailed, and contains the smallest number of figures, with only four hunters and four dogs attacking the stag in the centre of the composition. The figures are dressed in contemporary Italian clothing, with an emphasis on torsion and movement of the bodies, rather than naturalism. The background is so light that it appears as an afterthought, with another stag barely discernable in the mid-ground. The second scene is much darker than the first, though the thickness of line remains the same. Fialetti uses the same dark tree at the right to give depth to the foreground, but in this instance also, unconvincingly, defines the mid-ground with a forest and the background with rocky hills to the left. Again the focus of the scene is spread between the ferocity of the hunt and the movement of the figures, which is then further confounded by the unusually dark shadows cast upon each figure. The third image, of a bear hunt, is the darkest of the three, primarily due to the forest in which Fialetti has placed the scene. It is as violent as the previous two, with little attention paid to the background. Interestingly, the furthest right figure has a facial type similar to that used in Il vero modo and Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae, with a pointed chin and angular features. This work is also significant in that it betrays Fialettis relative inexperience with unique and energetic postures; that is, while he may be comfortable drawing parts of the body, he has still not reached his fully mature style in which he can accurately reconstruct the body in dynamic poses from varying perspectives.

95

Though as previously discussed, the relationship between Fialetti and Justus Sadeler provides ample evidence to support this attribution.

85

This particular subject was a popular one for illustrated books or series of prints, as is demonstrated by a two volume work by Antonio Tempesta, the Libro di Caccie Varie.96 Tempesta illustrates the exotic in this volume, including a number of animals (a doe, a hare, monkey, turkey, badger, peacock, etc.) on the two title pages alone. While the costumes of the figures between Fialettis work and Tempestas are similar, the scene itself is not, and Tempesta depicts the more violent scene of hunters baiting and stabbing a bear with a long spear, with a similar scene occurring in the background. The pursuit of the hunts of various wild animals is one which would have appealed to an aristocratic Seicento audience, not only reaffirming their social status by the depiction of these activities, but also by the very fact that they had the income necessary to commission and purchase books or series of prints for visual pleasure, lacking any moral or didactic function.

3.4. Friezes with Trophies prints after Polidoro da Caravaggio This period in Fialettis career is marked by collaboration with Justus Sadeler, who published not only Il vero modo, but also the series of Hunts. It follows logically then that another of Fialettis work published by Sadeler would likely date from this middle period: the six-plate series of Friezes with Trophies after Polidoro da Caravaggio [Fig. 3.68],97 whose works he would have seen in Rome. The series is undated, but was made

96

A. Tempesta, Primo e Secondo Libri di Caccie Varie, Intagliate per mano di Antonio Tempesta, Roma (Appresso Andrea Vaccario). [BAV, Cicognara IV.2113.a] This work is undated, but a small pencil note on the side of the first page reads [1598] which is perhaps a suggested (or known) date for the work. The title pages for both volumes are included on the same page, each of is approximately 8o in size. The plates themselves are not in order, beginning with 11, 12, 15, and 4, with two original pages pasted to the supports. The second engraving of bear baiting bears the inscription Anto. temp. fecit in the lower right corner. 97 O. Fialetti, Friezes with Trophies, after Polidoro da Caravaggio. Etching, each 63x256mm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. For a list of plates see No. 12, Appendix III.

86

for Salvator Fabris, the Paduan fencing master (from whom Nicoletto Giganti supposedly plagiarised the text for his Scola, Overo, Teatro). Fabris died on 11 November 1618, therefore the work should date from his middle period.98 Like many of his other works, Fialetti names the patron in the first plate, Cartouche surrounded by four slaves and armour, and also names Justus Sadeler as the publisher.99 All six plates of the series are crowded, full of figures and objects, but lack any of the flowering ornament he would use in his series of friezes after Polifilo Zancarli. The print quality is of a good, if variable, standard, and the first plate is much darker than the second, third and fifth. The second plate, entitled Frieze with Armour, a Prisoner, and Two Oriental Figures, creates a visually confusing image of shields, breastplates, and arms, behind which one can see the three figures, though they are for a large part obscured. The plates do not draw the automatic focus of the viewer, but rather lead the eye around an often confusing jumble of ornament and objects. Only the fifth etching, Frieze with a Woman Seated before an Old Crouching Man, Surrounded by Vases, differs from the rest in that it lacks the clutter of armour which obscures the figures. Instead, the vases are arranged so as to create depth (two rows, with several bowls and vases in the foreground with the figures), though none of them are depicted as convincingly volumetric. Fialetti looks to have rushed through this etching, as it lacks detail and accuracy in the forms. This particular pattern book was not one of Fialettis popular works, as it displays a degree of immaturity in its execution. Rather his later works, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli (sometimes referred to as Vertical Grotesques) and the horizontal version Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli
98

Fialetti uses the OF monogram, and the style appears to be a transition between the Allegory with religious and other figures and the book of Hunts. 99 For a transcription of the dedication, see No. 13, Appendix III. Fialettis monogram is in the lower left corner of the picture. It should be noted that the monogram appears on the left in plates 1, 2 and 4, and on the right in plates 3, 5 and 6.

87

(titled by Bartsch Grotesques in Friezes), which were copied more frequently by both Italian and Northern artists.100 Both of these works are undated, and like Friezes with Trophies created after the invention of another artist, however in them Fialetti displays a more mature appreciation of space, of the importance of shapes, volume, detail and empty space to give the ornament meaning, as opposed to an unintelligible juxtaposition of people and items.

There is an unrelated plate which I believe to be after the work of Polidoro da Caravaggio, the previously undescribed, Four Cupids Playing with a Goat [Fig. 3.69].101 The print consists of a putto at the far left holding a kid while the other three look on, pull the goats tail and suckle from it. As with a number of other prints, Fialetti includes a small village in the background, though the style of the foreground suggests a copy after another artist. The style of the puttis hair and the goats fur in particular is reminiscent of Polidoros Putti with Goats from panels decorating a palace interior.102 Though the composition is not identical, the stylistic similarities suggest a clear influence, though whether it was a direct copy of another work by Polidoro is uncertain.

3.5. The Wedding at Cana after Tintoretto

100

Both of these pattern books will be discussed later in this chapter, in the context of corresponding works done after them. 101 O. Fialetti, Four Cupids Playing with a Goat, etching, 64x185mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.18] This etching was the sixth in the set of Fialetti prints donated by Campbell Dodgson and is undated. 102 Polidoro da Caravaggio, Putti with Goats, from Panels from the decoration of a palace interior. Oil on pine panel, 33.0x120.0cm. Royal Collection, RCIN 402884. For a reproduction of this painting, please see: L. Whitaker and M. Clayton, The Art of Italy in the Royal Collection: Renaissance and Baroque, exh. cat., London 2007, 61.

88

Even at this point in his career, Fialetti continued to copy works after his early master Tintoretto, including the Wedding at Cana from 1612 [Fig. 3.70].103 This print is one of those for which Fialetti is most famous. In addition to being mentioned in a number of early biographies (alongside his own paintings)104 it is also mentioned by Sir Joshua Reynolds in his Italian Sketchbook of 1752.105

The print is very close to Tintorettos 1561 original for the refectory of the Crociferi (now in the Santa Maria della Salute) and even follows the original outline of the frame at the top. Variations in the figures and setting occur primarily to increase clarity of the scene, and usually involve a reduction in detail.106 A clear example includes the decrease in the number of chandeliers suspended from the ceiling. Also, the table setting has been drastically simplified to provide a cleaner line, and potentially to ease the etching of the work. There are also differences in the intensity of the light, caused by the difference in transferring an oil painting to an etched plate, however Fialetti has endeavoured to maintain as much of Tintorettos chiaroscuro and radiant light as is possible, demonstrating his growing fluency in the printed medium and his ability to exploit its
103

O. Fialetti after Tintoretto, Wedding at Cana, etching, 360x 435mm, 1612. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Imp, W,9.103] There exists another impression in the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, California, 360x 437mm, [Mr and Mrs Marcus Sopher Collection, 1988.1.284] The dedicatory inscription appears the same on both plates, see No. 14, Appendix III. All discussion in this chapter refers to the London impression. A number of other artists copied the Wedding at Cana, including G. Volpato in Rome in 1772. See [Fig. 3.71]. 104 G. Martinioni and F. Sansovino, Venetia: Citt Noblissima, Venetia (Appresso Stefano Curti) 1663 (facsimile reprint), 170. No. 15, Appendix III. M. Boschini, La Carta del Navegar Pitoresco, 503. No. 16, Appendix III. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 311. No. 17, Appendix III. P.A. Orlandi, Labecedario pittorico, 343. No. 18, Appendix III. A.M. Zanetti, Della Pittura Veneziana, Venezia 1771. No. 19, Appendix III. G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, 20-21. No. 20, Appendix III. C. Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dellArte, vol. II, 210. No. 21, Appendix III. 105 In the Sagristy the Marriage of Cana in Gallile by Tintoretto a print by Odoardo Fialetti painter & disciple of Tintoret, Sir J. Reynolds, Italian Sketchbook, 1752, vol. 1, 8r. [BM, 201.a.9-10] 106 Fialetti would have been inherently familiar with this scene as he painted another work to hang across from it in the refectory, the painting of Belshazzar Profaning the Sacred Vessels from the Temple of Jerusalem, as discussed in Chapter II.

89

inherent characteristics. In addition to these rather ornamental changes, Fialetti has added two coats of arms to either side of the image, in place of the original frame which would have surrounded Tintorettos version. The left coat of arms comprises three dark crosses in an oval frame (and is that of the Crociferi), and the other bearing an eagle above a lion rampant which may be the arms of Opilio Versa, named in the inscription.107 One of the more obvious differences between this depiction and the original is the change in the figures behind the table at the far left, as well as the facial features of the men seated in front of them. Whether or not this has any historical significance to the reading of the painting as given by Tintoretto is uncertain.

3.6. Virgin and Child with Young St John the Baptist on a Rim of Clouds The Wedding at Cana, the Virgin and Child with young St John the Baptist on a rim of clouds [Fig. 3.72]108 and the Mary, Christ and St John the Baptist, form the entirety of Fialettis religious prints during a period in which he seemed fascinated with mythology and secular subjects. The Virgin and Child with young St John the Baptist is labelled as AVE REGINA COELORUM and has the OF. F. monogram in the lower right corner. The image is standard, with the Virgin, Christ and the Baptist with putti at their feet. Christ holds the dove of the Holy Spirit aloft next to the Virgins head, and St John the Baptist carries a lamb and a cross with the abbreviation for the phrase Ecce Agnus Dei. The scene is set over a series of three distant hills, with a small grassy area in the

107

A similar armorial device is described and illustrated in M.A. Ginannis LArte del Blasone, having come from the Titi family in Ravenna, though it is uncertain as to whether this is the same family. M.A. Ginanni, LArte del Blasone, 175. 108 O. Fialetti, Virgin and Child with young St John the Baptist on a rim of clouds. Etching, 168x105mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1874,0808.581] There is no indication that this print was part of a series or book, though the edges have been cut down to leave approximately 2mm on each side of the print.

90

foreground. The figures are similar in their depiction to those in the later Scherzi dAmore, the design rapid and full of movement created in the juxtaposition of the suns rays and the soft flowing drapery of the Virgins robes and clouds. A second image of Mary, Christ and St John the Baptist exists in the Wellcome Library.109 This work differs from that of the Virgin and Child on a rim of clouds in that it is presented against a dark background, with a young St John the Baptist drinking from a large communion vessel held by both the Virgin and Christ.110 It is also stylistically different, appearing to be more reminiscent of the prints that Francesco Valegio engraved after Fialettis designs.

3.7. The Engraved Portraits of Doge Marcantonio Memmo and Curti Also from 1612 is the engraved portrait of Marcantonio Memmo [Fig. 3.73].111 The image contains the doges portrait in a central pendant, flanked by religious and allegorical figures. Religion is on the left in the guise of the Virgin Mary holding a rosary, and another female saint supporting the cross and the chalice and Eucharistic host; Allegory is on the right, with a woman holding an anchor, perhaps relating back to Venices connection with (and the Doges marriage to) the sea, or the Christian symbol

109

O. Fialetti (attrib.), Mary, Christ and St John the Baptist. Etching. [WEL, Iconographic] This work is undated and unsigned, and its attribution to Fialetti is uncertain. The origins and purpose of this image are both also unknown, and I have been unable to find another copy. It is not included in the Illustrated Bartsch. 110 This co-presentation of the communion of the Blood of Christ, relates back to the idea of the Virgin as co-redemptrix with Christ, with the flesh of Mary giving form to the blood of Christ. For more information on this iconography, please see: B. Williamson, The Virgin Lactans as Second Eve: Image of the Salvatrix, Studies in Iconography 19, 1998, 105-138. 111 O. Fialetti, Marcantonio Memmo. Etching, 144x235mm, 1612. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1874,0808.583] For the inscription see No. 22, Appendix III. There are further engravings at the base of the image, however a tear in the lower left corner makes the interpretation difficult. However, the visible letters read P, S, F which could indicate, pinxit, sculpsit and fecit, all of which are common in Fialettis oeuvre.

91

for hope, and a mother nursing her children, traditionally identified as Charity.112 The portrait is surrounded by an inscription identifying the sitter as Marcantonio Memmo.113 Above the portrait is a small image of the coat of arms of the Memmo family, however it differs from the standard version of the arms in that the two halves are reversed (that is, there are dark acorns against a light field on top, and light acorns against a dark field on the bottom), which suggests that there was a mistake in either the design or engraving by Fialetti.114 The figures are of an intermediate quality, done hastily, while the portrait itself is of reasonable quality and based on a standard profile view lacking in fine detail. Fialettis representation lacks any of the personality of painted portraits of doges from earlier masters, including Giovanni Bellini or Tintorettos representation of Doge Pietro Loredan.115

The second portrait is that of Curti [Fig. 3.74], which is undated but is stylistically similar to the middle period works.116 It is a standard portrait in a central oval pendant, flanked by two putti with trumpets. From the inscription underneath the portrait, taken in conjunction with the handwritten number 36 in brown ink at the top of the pendant that this portrait is from an unknown book and Curti is the either the subject or the patron. The figure is delineated freely, with an efficiency of line that lacks the precision and care of his very early works. There is a sense of activity in the clothes of the figure, with

112

If this interpretation is correct, the programme is one of succinct iconography, of faith, hope and charity, as discussed in 1 Corinthians 13. 113 See No. 22, Appendix III for further inscriptions. 114 G. Romanelli, M. da Cort Fumei and E. Basaglia, Le Palais des Doges de Venise, Musei Civici Veneziani, Milan 2005, 58-59. 115 J. Tintoretto, Doge Pietro Loredan. Oil on canvas, 127x100cm, c.1570. Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. 116 O. Fialetti, Portrait of Curti. Etching, 131x108mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1944,1014.582] The etching is in good condition; however the corners have been rounded and cut. See No. 23, Appendix III.

92

varying textures juxtaposed to create visual interest, and the delicate lace collar indicated by stippling. The costume is contemporary, and based on the inscription, in which the sound of Curtis hand is discussed in relation to tremulous accents it seems likely that Curti is an artist. From this interpretation, then, it is possible that this figure represents Francesco Curti, a Bolognese artist who was some years younger than Fialetti, but who produced his own drawing book in 1633, Esemplare per li principianti del disegno.117 Though Francesco was significantly younger than Odoardo Fialetti, the interest of both men in the production of drawing books suggests that Fialetti could have produced this portrait. The second potential identification is that of Girolamo Curti, a Bolognese painter and set designer contemporary with Fialetti, and while the dates of his life would probably place an engraved portrait in Fialettis middle period, his connection with the printed medium (and thus with Fialetti) is significantly less concrete than that of Francesco.118

3.8. The Four Divinities Series after Pordenone As Fialetti matured artistically, he broadened his range of sources from which he took influence, as well as his output of printed material, and the patrons for whom he worked. In 1614, he copied four images from the frescos in the Palazzo Tinghi in Udine by
117

Francesco Curtis exact year of birth is unknown, but thought to be c.1603 (according to Benezit). He was almost exclusively an engraver, and a student of painting under Guido Reni. His Esemplare per li principianti del disegno was made of 17 plates, published in Bologna in 1633, and the only copy in the UK was in the British Library, but was destroyed during World War II. [BL, Rare Books, D-7855.f.9.1] Due to the rarity of this volume, I have been unable to study it; however it seems likely that if this identification of Francesco Curti is correct, this portrait may be for his drawing book. That would then put the picture into Fialettis late period, however stylistically similar it is to his middle period work. For more information on Francesco Curti, see the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, v. 31, pp. 479-481. 118 Girolamo Curti was born in Bologna between 1570 and 1577 (one source gives an exact date of 4 April 1575, but this is not accepted by all biographers), and died in 1631 or 1632 (that same source also gives the date of death as 18 December 1632). For more information on Girolamo Curti (called il Dentone), see the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, v. 31, pp.481-484.

93

Pordenone, which were completed in 1534. Fialettis series of four prints was dedicated to the Earl of Arundel, Thomas Howard, who would have met the artist in Venice (presumably through the English ambassador, Sir Henry Wotton).119 It is of note that this is Fialettis first printed work for an English patron.120 The series is entitled Four Divinities [Figs. 3.75-3.78] and depicts Diana, Venus, Pan and Mars, each shown with traditional attributes and sitting on stone plinths. The first plate in the series, Diana contains the dedicatory inscription and attribution of the design to Pordenone and the etching by Fialetti.121 The images vary in quality, from a very finely wrought Diana to a much looser depiction of Venus, while Pan and Mars are both very detailed (especially in the musculature of their upper bodies). The image of Diana shows the goddess with her traditional attributes of the crescent moon tiara and a hunting dog, as she leans on her arm and pushes her torso forward.122 The image is true to Pordenones style, as Fialetti abandons his knowledge of anatomy to capture the grace of the line which flows from the drapery through her posture. Venus is of a similar type, with an extended back, shortened legs, and muscular arms.123 The attribution of these works to Fialetti is confirmed by his monogram under the left hand side of the drapery on the plinth, and he includes the

119

A full set of the prints can be found in the British Museum, London. Each print is 146x207mm. The Wellcome Library is in possession of a copy of Mars (Ares), 145x206mm [WEL, Iconographic Collections] Several additional impressions of the images exist, though as far as I am aware, there are no other complete sets outside of London; the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco own Venus [Mr and Mrs Marcus Sopher Collection, 150x217mm. 1993.63.194] and Pan [Mr and Mrs Marcus Sopher Collection, 141x205mm. 1987.1.168]. The Venus etching is significant in that there is printing underneath the bottom edge, which reads Odoardo Fialetti incise. However whether this is etched or handwritten is difficult to discern without firsthand study of the print. 120 For a discussion of the patronage of the English circles in Venice, see Chapter V. 121 For the dedication and related inscriptions, see No. 24, Appendix III. 122 O. Fialetti, Diana. Etching, 145x206mm, 1614. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, X,2.57] 123 O. Fialetti, Venus. Etching, 147x208mm, 1614. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, X,2.59] The bulging spine above the lower back of the figure is true to the original designs by Pordenone. Stylistically, Venus is the weakest etching of the four, in which Fialetti uses a much thicker line and less of the fine cross hatching which characterise the other three prints in the series.

94

inscription ALPI, which echoes the lengthy inscription at the left of the Diana giving the design to Pordenone.

Of the two male figures, the etching of Pan is the most visually interesting.124 Fialetti demonstrates his mastery of texture, especially that which is not entirely original to the frescoes (due to the inherent nature of the medium); the fur which covers his lower body contrasts with his muscled torso (which can trace its origins back to the drawing book) and the rough texture of the stone as delineated through regular cross hatching broken by occasional diagonals. The fourth figure in the series is Mars (sometimes titled Ares), whose pose echoes that of Diana.125 He holds a plume in his hand which mimics the tumultuous clouds in the sky. The wavy hair of Mars is reminiscent of that used by Fialetti in a variety of general figures for title pages in later works, and in this repetition of forms and ideas, Fialettis work is easily characterised. Like Pan, he focuses attention on the muscular torso, though it is a more slender figure than the previous one. However here, he makes several errors in perspective, creating an impossibly twisted torso and a right calf which looks to be collapsed, almost like the surface of a flat bone with a ridge along the outer edge. Additionally, the foot is entirely too small for the size of the leg and body, an endemic fault of Fialettis draughtsmanship, found in the title page for Casseris anatomy (in both the corch and the skeleton). Such a fault seems to be common among artists of this period, and perhaps Fialetti acquired it from collaborations with Palma il Giovane or from studying Vesalius, whose artist makes the same mistake throughout the

124

O. Fialetti, Pan. Etching, 145x207mm, 1614. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, X,2.58] As with Venus, there is an attribution of the design to Pordenone in the ALPI inscription at the left, under which is Fialettis monogram: OF Inc. 125 O. Fialetti, Mars. Etching, 147x206mm, 1614. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, X,2.56]

95

plates.126 However despite such shortcomings, Fialetti has proved his capability as an artist in that he can adapt his style for a variety of subjects, media and styles (especially copies after other artists while he has been faithful to Pordenones originals, the style is definitely his own).

3.9. La Pittura Trionfante Fialetti next worked with Giulio Cesare Gigli on his 1615 La Pittvra Trionfante, a poem divided into two sections extolling the virtues of Cinquecento and Seicento painters (including Fialetti).127 Gigli was from Brescia, and his purpose in writing La Pittura Trionfante was to describe those painters badly discussed or ignored by Vasari (and to include later artists).128 The book is dedicated to Signor Daniel Nijs (Nys), a Flemish art dealer and collector who lived in Venice from circa 1598, and who served as the agent to the Duke of Buckingham.129 Gigli is said to have admired Nys collection, as discussed in the dedicatory letter.130 Fialetti was involved in the production of both the title page and the engraved portrait of Daniel Nys, and the title page131 contains an allegorical illustration of the classically styled figure of Painting on her chariot, followed by men, who one can assume are artists striving after the ideal. In the background, there is a small

126

For further discussion on the feet of the Vesalian figures relating to an extant drawing, see: M. Kemp, A Drawing for the Fabrica and some thoughts upon the Vesalius Muscle Men, Medical History XIV, 1970, 284. 127 G.C. Gigli, La Pittura Trionfante, scritta in quattro Capitoli e Consacrata: Al molto Illustre & generosissimo Signore il Signor Daniel Nijs, Venetia 1615. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.N.107 (int.17)] 128 B. Agosti and S. Ginzburg, eds., La Pittura Trionfante, by Giulio Cesare Gigli, Bologna 1996, 7. 129 D. Howarth, Nys, Daniel, Grove Dictionary of Art, Oxford University Press. For further discussion of Daniel Nys, see Chapter V. 130 B. Agosti and S. Ginzburg, eds., La Pittura Trionfante by Giulio Cesare Gigli, 29-31. 131 LA PITTVRA / TRIONFANTE / DA GIVLIO CESARE GIGLI / Scritta in quattro Capitoli / E consacrata: / Al molto Illustre, & generosissimo Signore il Signor Daniel Nijs / IN VENEZIA, 1615. / Da Giouanni Alberti. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.M.107 (int.17)] The volume in which this work can be found is labelled Miscellanea and contains 18 books of various period and locations bound together. The book is approximately 132x176m m in size.

96

round temple with loggia on either side, to which the figure of Painting gestures. The design of the illustration is attributed to Palma il Giovane132 and the engraving to Fialetti, as the OF monogram appears in the lower right, confirming their collaboration after the completion of Fialettis drawing book. The style is definitely that of Palma, with a number of crowded figures in the foreground and slightly shoddy perspective especially in the figures of the four horses driving the chariot. The second illustration in the work is portrait of Nys in a pendant surrounded by flowers, with an inscription beneath in small oval.133 The picture is of a standard quality and composition in relation to Fialettis other engraved portraits, the head being slightly too large for the shoulders. His features seem to be captured accurately, and without idealisation, and Fialetti gives him a weak chin and large nose. Gigli discusses Fialetti early in his work, in the dedication and the third part of the poem, the former of which states that it was Nys through whom he met the artist.134 The first part of the poem begins with artists such as Leonardo (il gran Leonardo), Francesco Bassano, Marco Vecellio and Palma. The first, second and third parts continue with brief mentions of a number of artists, before addressing Fialetti (who is discussed after Annibale, Agostino and Lodovico Carracci, thus further reinforcing the tenuous connection between Fialetti and the Carracci academy). He was praised most highly for his depiction of the human figure, for the perfection with which he forms flesh, nerves and bone,135 which is very telling given his later work with Casseri (and possibly

132 133

I. Palma inv. is inscribed in the lower left corner. DANIEL NYS WESSALIENSIS DITIONIS CLIVENSIS surrounds the portrait. Underneath is the following inscription: Interno fruere, O DANIEL, splendore, serenum / In populos omnes emicat unde Subar: / Hinc est quof plusu leto, et clamore secundo / Virtutum merit diceris esse decus. [BAV, Cicognara.IV, M.107 (int. 17)], fol.A.3v. 134 See No. 25, Appendix III. 135 G.C. Gigli, La Pittura Trionfante, 19. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.M.107, (int. 17)] No. 26, Appendix III. This poem is reproduced by Malvasia in the Felsina Pittrice, 314, directly preceding that by Boschini from the

97

his earlier work with Valegio in the Venetian edition of Vesalius). The praise given to Fialetti, and its specific enumeration of the interior parts of the body is unique in La Pittura Trionfante, thus marking him out as an artist capable of anatomical design (even Leonardo was not given such accolades).

3.10. The Scherzi dAmore This middle period of Fialettis career was dominated by patronage stemming from his relationships with Wotton and Nys. While the previous work for Gigli was brought about through a working relationship with Daniel Nys, the commission of the Scherzi dAmore [Figs. 3.79-3.92] came through an introduction made by Sir Henry Wotton. The Scherzi dAmore was written and illustrated for Baron Roos, the grandson of Lord Burghley.136 He is an enigmatic historical figure who served as the ambassador to Spain, but about whom relatively little is known. It was early in his life, however, during one of his visits to Venice that he met Fialetti and commissioned the 1617 Scherzi dAmore. The date is significant not only because it marks the beginning of his tenure as an ambassador, but also because he was married in 1616, and thus this book may have been commissioned on the occasion of his wedding.137 The work has a relatively simple title page consisting of two putti holding up the coat of arms of Baron Roos upon a base of clouds.138 The book

Carte del Navegar Pitoresco, which also discusses his depiction of the body, but does not enumerate his mastery over its individual parts. 136 M. Hume, The Great Lord Burghley, London 1906. 137 It should also be noted that he left his wife only one year later, and died mysteriously, thought by some to have been poisoned. 138 SCHERZI / DAMORE / Espressi da / ODOARDO FIALETTI / AL MAGNANIMO / et Illmo Sigr Sigr il Sigr / BARON ROOS / IN VENETIA CON LIC. DE. SUP. MDCXVII. [BAV, Cicognara AV.2113.b, 69-83] There is no indication of the printer in Venice on the title page, or on the so-called First Title page which appears in the BM edition, but not in the Roman copy. Each page is 177x92mm, and the work is bound in with several unrelated books, including Palma il Giovanes drawing book, and loose prints and drawings. The copy in Rome is identical in contents to the copy in London; however the page beginning

98

is comprised of thirteen illustrations of Venus and Cupid in various activities and attitudes accompanying text by the poet D. Maurizio Moro139; three pages contain no text (and are unsigned) and appear in sequence before the final page.

The first page contains an illustration of Venus covering a sleeping Cupid, which is very much in the style of his earlier 1598 Venus and Cupid. The figure of Venus is of an identical type to that of the earlier depiction; however by this point, it becomes obvious that Fialetti has abandoned the fine detail that is indicative of his early period and emphasises volumetric shading, looser handling and focus on the interplay of light on a variety of textures. Fialettis maturing style (as demonstrated in these thirteen plates) has been most accurately described as: the quest for equilibrium between the expressive force of chiaroscuro and the pictorial freedom of the printed medium.140 There is also a clear influence from Agostino Carracci, especially if one compares Agostinos engraving of Venus punishing Cupid, which though similar to Fialettis depiction of the same scene, includes two additional putti, and arranges the figures differently.141 The second illustration is a much more intimate one, of Venus and Cupid embracing, with a pair of
with the text Tolto chol aureo stral (p.83 in the BAV copy) are catalogued as plate 2 in the British Museum copies. Pages referred to in text refer to the BAV copy. The British Museum has several incomplete sets of this series by Fialetti, and one copy in reverse after Fialetti. A number of impressions can be identified from the incomplete sets, printed on standard white paper, pink paper and brown paper. O. Fialetti, Scherzi dAmore. Etching, each approximately 178x93mm, 1617. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.1-14] The print on pink paper is 3: Venus covering the sleeping Cupid with a cloth. Etching, 143x92mm, 1617. [BM, Italian XVIIc Unmounted Roy, U,5.19] The print on brown paper is 2: Venus seated holding an arrow and looking over her shoulder. Etching, 178x90mm, 1617. [BM, Italian XVIIc Unmounted Roy, U,5.21] All other copies, and a full list of plates for the book are given in the Appendix. 139 The author of the text is not given in the work itself, and is found in G. Gori Gandellinis biography of Fialetti. G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, 21-22. No. 27, Appendix III. The work is also mentioned by P.A. Orlandi, and F. De Boni, though the author is not named. 140 Fialetti, Odoardo, Dizionario Enciclopedico Bolaffi dei Pittori e degli Incisori Italiani, IV (Cos-Fil), 1973, 433. 141 This image is discussed in F. Moro, Alcune fonti iconografiche delle maioliche dei Castelli dAbruzzo, Rassegna di Studi e di Notizie, Castello Sforzesco 9, 1981, pp. 412-415.

99

flamingos mimicking their gesture in the mid-ground and two crossed trees mirroring their posture and dynamism directly above the pair. This is potentially the weakest of the thirteen illustrations for the book, as the cross-hatching from the rock extends down into the back of Venus. It may also indicate that this book was completed quickly for Baron Roos, as the pages cover a gradient of quality and depth of line. In two later plates, Venus commands Cupid to her side as he fills his quiver with arrows and Venus holds Cupids bow out of reach, we again see reference to the fact that this book appears to have been completed rapidly, with each page appearing as an independent work. There is a disparity in the figure of Cupid, sometimes he appears as a youth of about seven years of age (as in Venus combing Cupids hair), and at other times the same figure is a classically styled (and sized) putto as in these two plates. Though this book is not an overt work of eroticism, Fialetti has sexualised the images beyond that of the allegory or game of love, and makes graphic allusions to Venus genitalia in the folds of cloth in Venus holding Cupids bow out of reach and the earlier Venus and Cupid embracing.

Beyond these overt sexual overtones, Fialetti continues to play his game of visual rhyming throughout the image, in the crossed tree trunks and horizontal branches mimicking Venus arm and Cupids bow, and echoing the tone of the poem by D. Maurizio Moro. The narrative is broken in the scenes of Venus blindfolding Cupid for a game and Venus looks up to Cupid. In the earlier image of Venus scolding Cupid, we see his bow broken, however for these two works it is whole again.142 The three plates with

142

Again it must be noted that the sequence of plates in the BAV copy differs from that given by the Illustrated Bartsch, and the incomplete BM copy. In the BM version, the sequence after Venus blindfolding Cupid for a game is as follows: Venus breaking Cupids bow over her knee, Cupid fashions a new bow whilst Venus looks on, and Venus looks up to Cupid.

100

no text (Venus looks up to Cupid, Venus breaking Cupids bow over her knee, and Cupid fashions a new bow whilst Venus looks on) are also unsigned, whereas all other pages have Fialettis monogram and the letter f in the lower right corner. If one considers the number of extant copies of this work (both complete and incomplete), as well as the prevalence of copies after Fialetti, it becomes apparent that this was a popular book not only in Italy, but presumably England (after Roos brought it back from Venice), and France where it was used as a pattern book for faence produced in Nevers.143

4. The Mature Period (1619 1638) and an Engraved Portrait of Titian The 1617 Scherzi dAmore is the last firmly dated printed work in Fialettis middle period. With the exception of an engraved portrait of Titian for the Breve compendio della vita del famoso Titiano, Fialetti makes a leap to longer and more complex printed works in his mature period. His printed works from 1619 until his death are more indepth, indicative of his rising status in taking larger commissions (though admittedly still for a varied market including religious, scientific, military, artistic and aristocratic audiences). The beginning of Fialettis mature period coincides with the arrival of the Countess of Arundel in Venice in 1619, her move attributed to her desire to educate her

143

A. Lane, The Baroque Faence of Nevers, The Burlington Magazine 89, 1947, 35-42. Also see J. Parker, A.M. Zrebiec, J. McNab, C. Le Corbeiller, and C. Vincent, French Decorative Arts during the Reign of Louis XIV 1654 1715, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, 46, 1989, i + 1064. There are examples of these faence plates, platters and jars in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as discussed in the article above, in the Museo del Castello Sforzesco, Milan, and in the Muse des BeauxArts, Rouen. For a brief discussion of the platter in Milan based on Fialettis illustration of Venus Combing Cupids Hair, see F. Moro, Alcune fonti iconografiche delle maioliche dei Castelli dAbruzzo, 419 and 426-427 (fig. 28). This article also discusses other popular prints used as sources for the decoration of faence, including those by Antonio Tempesta and the Carracci. In Rouen, two objects are attributed to designs after Fialetti; the first is Venus punishing Cupid, c. 1725, faence plate, 237mm diameter. [Muse des Beaux Arts, Rouen, 211.C] The second is Venus covering the sleeping Cupid, 1708, faence pitcher (broken), 165mm high, 140mm diameter at widest, 95mm diameter base. [Muse des Beaux Arts, Rouen, 21.C]

101

sons in the Italian fashion.144 While Fialetti was already known to the Earl of Arundel through his commission of the Four Divinities series, Lady Arundel was a patron and collector in her own right.145 In 1622 the Breve compendio della vita del famoso Titiano Vecellio di Cadore was written by Tizianello (the grandson of Titian) and dedicated to the Countess of Arundel.146 Fialetti is given as the artist in a letter from the publisher (Santo Grillo e fratelli)147 appearing after the letter to the readers as written by Tizianello.148 The portrait of Titian is of a standard type, though its execution is quick and looks more like a sketch, and lacks the finish of the heads in his drawing book. Contrary to popular assumption, the portrait by Fialetti was not commissioned by Aletheia Talbot, but rather by Tizianello, perhaps because he was aware of the position of Fialetti in the circle of the Arundels.149

4.1. Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa The first of the large-scale commissions of his mature period was Francescos Tensinis treatise on military strategy, La Fortificazione Guardia Difesa et Espugnatione delle

144 145

L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, v. I, Oxford 1966, 184. See D. Howarth, The Patronage and Collecting of Aletheia, Countess of Arundel 1606-54, Journal of the History of Collections 10, 1998, 125-137. For more on Fialettis relationship with Countess Arundel, see Chapter V. 146 T. Vecellio (Tizianello), Breve compendio della vita del famoso Titiano Vecellio di Cadore, Venetia (Santo Grillo & fratelli) 1622. [BL, Rare Books, 810.i.3] A second copy exists in the Bibliothque National de France [BNF, Tolbiac Rez-de-jardin magasin, RES K 689 (5)]. All references made to the portrait are based on the London copy. A further discussion of the circumstances of the dedication of this book to the Countess of Arundel is included in Chapter V. 147 Santo Grillo was active in the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori in Venice from 1600 to 1622, holding a number of posts within the guild. The last date of entry in which he is recorded in the guild suggests that this was one of the last works he produced. Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, Arti, b.163 (book 2). [ASV] 148 Santo Grillo in T. Vecellio, Breve Compendio della Vita del Famoso Titiano Vecellio. See No. 28, Appendix III. 149 Aletheia Talbot supposedly appreciated the portrait for its artistry, and rewarded Fialetti accordingly for his work. See Chapter V of this thesis for more information.

102

Fortezze [Figs. 3.93-3.97] from 1624.150 For an experienced military audience, this work explores defences and strategies for dealing with cities and fortresses of various shapes and in various locations.151 The frontispiece takes the form of a large etching in an architectural setting, and the book alternates text and figures for 124 pages, divided into three books: fortification, defence and plans of attack. Often the illustrations include small landscapes and putti in addition to the diagrams. The attribution of the illustrations to Fialetti is both stylistic and textual: the landscapes all appear to be variations on his 1610 Landscapes book and the putti are entirely keeping with his style, and at the bottom of the first plate he has signed a rock with: ODOARDO / FIALETTI / FECIT. / IN VENETIA / MDCXXIIII.152

150

F. Tensini, La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa et Espugnatione delle Fortezze Esperimentata in Diverse Guerre, Venezia (Fillipo Sadeler) 1624. [BNM, D 041D 021] The printing of this book is given as both by Fillippo Sadeler (fillippo Sadeler fecit Venetia on the title page) and Evangelista Deuchino (Appresso Euangelista Deuchino on page 118. There is also an inscription in the lower margin: tri fra Gio Batta Vertova. Fillippo Sadeler is not listed in the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, but Evangelista Deuchino is listed from 1620 to 1627. Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, Arti, b. 163 (book 3). [ASV] Three years later he published Spieghels De humani corporis libri decem. The Deuchino family was a publishing dynasty active in Venice and Treviso from 1570 1629, and Evangelista was one of the sons, dedicating himself to the art of printing from 1593. Deuchino, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, v. 39, p. 497. A second edition using the original plates was published only six years later. F. Tensini, La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa, Venezia (Antonio Bariletti et Fratelli) 1630. [BNM, 039D.016] Francesco Bariletti appears in the Printers Guild from 1593 1621, and Antonio Bariletti appears from 1638, even though he was actively publishing in 1630. Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, Arti, b. 163 (book 3). [ASV] 151 For more information on military treatises, see P. Bremen, Books on Military Architecture in Venice: an annotated Catalogue, The Netherlands 2002. Bremen notes that Venice printed almost as many titles on the subject of fortification than the rest of Europe combined (p. 6). Bremen discusses several different editions of the Tensini work, but fails to note the copies of the 1624 and 1630 editions in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in his catalogue on page 338. Furthermore, he suggests that subsequent editions of the works were not reprinted, but were rather re-issued with a new title page. 152 The placement of the signature on a rock is typical for Fialetti and recalls his paintings in San Zulian in Venice and the St Sebastian print after Tintoretto. This work is occasionally mentioned in early biographies, appearing in C.C. Malvasia, Mi souvien parimente, che intagli un libro di fortificationi, e macchine da guerra per lIngegner Tensini, Felsina Pittrice, 312. G. Gori Gandellini, Pubblic un libro di Fortificazioni, e macchine da Guerra per un Ingegnere, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, 22; and F. De Boni: Public... una Raccolta di macchine da guerra, Biografia degli Artisti, 356. The use of the word public here is interesting, given that Fialetti was not a member of the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, but rather a member of the Arte degl Intagliatori, and thus intagli would seem more accurate a description than published. The first two figures of the book are not labelled, while the rest are ordered numerically: Figura Terza through Quarantesima Quarta.

103

The book itself was successful, as fortification treatises were popular from the midsixteenth century, and Bremen suggests this is because the print publishers of this citystate, free from the insistence in many smaller, less outgoing (or plainly paranoid) places that such matters were state secrets and their dissemination an act of treason.153 He also suggests that Fialettis illustrations were less effective than those for other treatises,154 however given the existence of the five cut-down prints in the British Museum, their lack of success for a military audience was compensated for by an appreciation from an artistic audience. Figura Quinta was cut into two separate images, the top of the page is a detailed landscape, and the bottom of the page depicts three putti with a scale,155 thus the diagram concerning fortification that occurs in the centre of the page has been removed.

4.2. Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata Like Tensinis treatise, the illustrations for the 1625 illustrated Venetian edition of Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata were not included in the Illustrated Bartsch and
153 154

P. Bremen, Books on Military Architecture Printed in Venice, 6. P. Bremen, Books on Military Architecture Printed in Venice, 337. 155 The landscape from Figura Quinta is: O. Fialetti, Landscape with a river flowing through an arched bridge in a town. Etching, 147x204mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1932,0708.5] The image of three putti is: O. Fialetti, Three Cupids, one holding compasses, the others a scale. Etching, 97x206mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.19] The other illustrations cut-down from Tensini in the British Museum are as follows. From the second plate: O. Fialetti, Landscape with buildings. Etching, 74x207mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.20] From the upper-half of Figura Decimaterza: O. Fialetti, Landscape with a lake. Etching, 74x205mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy 1925,0331.21] From the lower-half of Figura Decimaquinta: O. Fialetti, A Cupid with compasses and a scale. Etching, 67x85mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1925,0331.17] The date at which these images were cut from the original book is uncertain, as is the location of the rest of the plates, however based on the similarity in paper quality they are probably from the same edition. However the back of A Cupid with Compasses and a Scale is supported with a later pasted addition, which reads: Just published, Price 4s. in a neat Pocket Volume / The Anatomy and Physiology / of the Horses Foot / Concisely Described; / with / Practical Observations on Shoeing. This is the title page to James Whites 1801 book, published in London by T. Gillet. [BL, Rare Books, RB.23.a.25905] While it does not provide a conclusive date, it does suggest that the work needed extra support sometime after that date, and therefore may have been cut down some years earlier and its condition perhaps weakened by mishandling.

104

are not mentioned in any of the early biographies of the artist, and thus its addition to his accepted printed oeuvre marks a unique contribution of this thesis. The epic poem based on the Crusades and containing the narratives of Tancred and Clorinda, and Rinaldo and Armida was a popular subject for artists through the eighteenth century, and known examples can be found in the Tintoretto workshop,156 suggesting that Fialetti may have been exposed to the work early in his training. Illustrated editions of the poem were produced from the early seventeenth century157, published in Rome, Genoa, Urbino, Padua and Venice, among others. Fialettis illustrations were for Giacomo Sarzinas illustrated edition, and he worked with both Giacomo and Francesco Valegio to produce the twenty plates.158 Only ten of the plates are signed, and of those, only two by Fialetti, five by Francesco Valegio and three by Giacomo Valegio.159 The style of the plates is significantly different, however, and thus differentiation between Fialetti and the other two artists, Giacomo Valegio in particular, is possible.
156

C. Wilson, Domenico Tintorettos Tancred Baptising Clorinda: A Closer Look, Venezia Cinquecento 6, 1993, 121-138. 157 For further information on the illustrations for or of Tasso, see: A. Buzzoni, ed., Torquato Tasso tra Letturatura, Musica, Teatro e Arti Figurative, Bologna 1985. Centro di Studi Tassiani, Torquato Tasso e le Arti, Bergamo 2002. R.M.F., Tintorettos Baptism of Clorinda, Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago (1907-1951) 19, 1925, 59-60. R.W. Lee, Observations on the First Illustrations of Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 125, 1981, 329-356. A. Mariuz, La Gerusalemme Liberata di Torquato Tasso con le Figure di Giambattista Piazzetta, in Libro e Incisione a Venezia nel Veneto nei secoli XVII e XVIII, Vicenza, 1988, 33-60. Of particular note is a 1590 edition published in Genoa, with drawings by Bernardo Castello, engraved by Agostino Carracci and Giacomo Franco, as discussed by A. Buzzoni, p. 97-98. 158 Sarzina produced two editions of Gerusalemme Liberata in Venice in 1625, the first was an unillustrated version in which each Canto was preceded by an Allegory by Oratio Ariosto. T. Tasso, Il Goffredo, ouero Gierusalemme Liberata, Venetia (Giacomo Sarzina) 1625. [NLS, NRR, Nha.Q100] It should be noted that this edition does contain a small illustration on the title page with the initials V.F. in the lower left, suggesting that Francesco Valegio was involved (as he often signed plates Valegio fecit, or V.F.). The second edition of 1625 was illustrated, and did not contain Allegories. T. Tasso, La Gervsalemme Liberata, Venetia (Sarzina) 1625. [BL, Rare Books, 638.k.20] Giacomo Sarzina first appears in the Printers Guild in 1613, and is active until at least 1640, having been elected Prior from 1632. Arti dei Libreri e Stampatori, Arti, b. 163 (books 2-3). [ASV] A watermark of a vase or an urn is visible on the inside front cover and on the back flyleaf, and a P.V. countermark is visible on the first page of the letter to the readers, and on a number of pages throughout the book. The title page depicts Apollo crowning the victorious Godfrey with a crown of laurels while another knight looks on. 159 Fialetti illustrated plates for Cantos V and XIV, Francesco Valegio illustrated Cantos III, VIII, IX, XVII, and XIX, and Giacomo Valegio illustrated VI, VII, and XI.

105

The first of the signed illustrations by Fialetti is for Canto Quinto160, in which Godfrey meets Rinaldo in the foreground. Each of the figures is labelled, assisting in the ease of interpretation of a number of scenes which take place throughout the plate. Fialetti has carefully composed the scene, and though busy, the plate as a whole feels carefully delineated, including the detail of tents against the mountains in the upper background. Even in an illustration for a heroic poem, Fialetti tried to exemplify his ideals of good disegno, using a classical torso as a basis for the body of Gernando after his fight with Rinaldo, and paying particularly close attention to the cloak of Godfrey and the knees of the soldiers behind him, which are reminiscent of the drawing book. The second illustration by Fialetti, for Canto Quartodecimo161, depicts Godfreys dream in which Ugone comes to him and he speaks to his men. This illustration is set against a dark sky, and contains a number of allegorical details, including a broken column162 and a renaissance temple. Here in particular, we see Fialettis interest in detail, and his characteristic landscapes (especially the elongated C-curved leaves) provide a strong contrast to those works by the two other artists involved in the project.163 Though only some plates are signed, it is possible that Fialetti also etched plates for Cantos Primo,

160 161

T. Tasso, La Gerusalemme Liberata, 46. The OF monogram appears in the lower left corner. T. Tasso, La Gerusalemme Liberata, 156. The OF monogram appears in the lower right corner. 162 Perhaps symbolising the fall of a heathen Jerusalem to Christianity. 163 Giacomo Valegio tends toward more stylised figures and heightened chiaroscuro, with an emphasis on costume. His work is more immature than Fialetti or Francesco Valegio, whose work differs from Fialetti in its static quality and calm. It is uncertain if one artist designed all the scenes and their etching was divided between the three, or if each designed his own plates. However, the intrinsic lack of control of proportion and careful design in some plates suggests that each designed his own. A. Buzzoni suggests that the plates were based on the illustrations by Vincenti for the 1611 edition; however he does not include plates in his catalogue for comparison, or discuss the publication details of this earlier edition. See A. Buzzoni, Torquato Tasso tra Letturatura, Musica, Teatro e Arti Figurative, p. 106. He also does not enumerate specific plates by each artist, stating only that the three worked on the illustration for that edition.

106

Quarto, Decimo Terzo, and Vigesimo, and the title page.164 In addition to the 1625 Venetian edition, there is also a 1628 Padua edition in which is illustrated with woodcuts.165 The plates are each labelled with V.F., suggesting that Francesco Valegio was involved, though whether Fialetti had any involvement is uncertain.166

4.3. De gli Habiti Religioni While much of his work throughout his middle period was focused on secular subjects, one of Fialettis most ambitious projects in his mature period was a religious work, the 1626 De gli habiti religioni [Figs. 3.98-3.103], for Giovana Luillier, the French ambassador, Antonio Maffei and Pompeo dalli doi Mori.167 The first title page contains a crest (presumably that of Giovana Luillier), with two small putti holding up the banner with the inscription. The second and third title pages follow the same format, but the crest is of course changed to match the dedication. There is no mention of additional authors, contributors, or collaborators beyond printer Marco Sadeler, and therefore we may

164

Stylistically, these are the most similar to Fialettis work (while also being significantly dissimilar to that of Francesco and Giacomo Valegio). If one assumes an even division of work, then there are 21 plates (including the title page), and thus each artist would have etched seven. 165 T. Tasso, La Gervsalemme Liberata, Padova (Pietro Paolo Tozzi) 1628. [BL, Rare Books, 83.f.18] 166 A. Buzzoni notes that the plates are engraved by an anonymous engraver, however I have noted that the V.F. monogram, potentially Valegio fecit, is identical to that in the 1625 Venetian edition, and is stylistically similar to his work, though it does show a clear debt to the work of Fialetti, whether he was directly involved or not. 167 O. Fialetti, De gli habiti religioni, Venetia (Marco Sadeler) 1626. [BAV, Cicognara.IV.1649]. The work is 210mm in height, and divided into three books, with pages numbered from the image of Religion (2). It should also be noted that this earlier volume is much slimmer than the 1658 version. There is a second title page after the depictions of 26 of 70 religious orders, naming a second patron. The third title page after 51 is addressed to a third patron. For the dedications see No. 29, Appendix III. There are four additional plates not included in the BAV copy, but found in the British Library version and the Wellcome 1658 edition, illustrating: 71. Carmelitani Scalzi, 72. Padri Servi di Sta Maria, 73. Di Santa Brigida, and 74. Padri di S. Girolamo di Fiesole. The plates are in the same style as the other 68, and appear to be by Fialettis hand. Their omission from the BAV copy could be due to loss when the work was put into its modern binding, and therefore may not constitute a variant copy.

107

assume that it was one of the two men who wrote the opening letter to the reader.168 He writes that the book has been written for the glory of religion, and that he is writing this book to record the various religious habits of the diverse orders that serve God.169 Directly following the letter to readers there is a full page illustration of the Allegory of Religion, which focuses on a headless female nude, though it appears to be a light underdrawing and shadow truncated horizontally at the neck, as if an earlier state of the plate contained the head. The figure is shown in prayer, her knee upon a plinth titled RELIGIONE; she faces the images referring to the New Testament and the triumph of Christianity. There are clear references to the Old and New Testaments separated on either side of the figure, including the tablets containing the ten commandments, a burning altar as well as a bull and ram waiting to be sacrificed on the right, and smoking censers, the chalice, paten and Eucharist, as well as the spear, cross, crown of thorns, and the stick with the vinegar-soaked sponge on the left. None of the plates are inscribed with Fialettis monogram and each follows the same format, depicting a member of the religious order in his or her habit against a plain background (though he does give it some depth by adding a horizontal line and light shading). The figures are shown in a moderately finished state, and attention is paid to the faces and identifying characteristics of the habits (crosses, hats, capes, rosaries, etc.). It should also be noted that only three orders of nuns are depicted separately from the monastic and priestly orders: the Monaci Cluniascensi di S. Benedetto, the Monaci Camaldolensi, and the Monaci Camaldolensi di Monte Corona, all of which appear in the second book.

168

This work is mentioned in early printed sources. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 312. No. 30, Appendix III. A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, 636. No. 31, Appendix III. G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, 22. No. 32, Appendix III. F. de Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, 356. No. 33, Appendix III. 169 No. 34, Appendix III.

108

The book of religious orders was one of Fialettis more popular printed works, created for a wide audience, and was subsequently copied in Paris in 1658 under the title Briefve Histoire de lInstitvtion des Ordres Religieux. Avec les figures de leurs Habits, and again in 1680 with a variation of the original Italian title, Habiti delle religioni, con le armi e breve descrittioni lors.170 While the plates appear to be a reprinting of the originals (thus leading to the question of how Adrien Menier obtained the plates after the printing of the 1626 original), the division of the book in these two later editions varies from Fialettis three-book format. The 1658 Paris edition contains a second title page halfway through the plates, which is simply a translation of the title back into the original Italian, without the original dedications. In the Wellcome Library copy of this edition, the original owner made notations in this work, especially relating to the empty religious crests of particular orders, including the Order of Saint Brigid, which he filled in with pen and brown ink. The popularity of this book may be due in part to its versatility, serving several purposes and thus reaching a wider distribution than some of his allegorical works, acting as a religious reference concerning the habits and foundations various religious orders, and also as an artistic reference, serving as a pattern book for the young artist when depicting religious subjects of various orders. This book was also popular in seventeenth century

170

O Fialetti, Briefve Histoire de lInstitvtion des Ordres Religieux. Avec les figures de leurs Habits, grauees sur le cuiure par ODOARD FIALETTI. Bolognois. Adrien Menier, la Porte Saint Victor, Paris 1658. [WEL, 51994/B] It should be noted that the 1658 version contains the four additional plates (Carmelitani Scalzi, Padri Servi di Sta Maria, Di Santa Brigida and Padri di S. Girolamo di Fiesole) that are not contained in the 1626 BAV copy which appear in the London version. O. Fialetti, Habiti delle religioni, con le armi e breve descrittioni lors... In Parigi, 1680. [BNF, Tolbiac Rez-de-jardin magasin, 4-H-401 and FB-14295(2)]

109

England, as a copy was brought back from Italy by Dr John Bargrave, and subsequently passed on to Archbishop John Tillotson in 1680.171

4.4. The Ornamental Pattern Books With the publication of De Gli Habiti Religioni, Fialetti embarked on a second period of intense graphic activity to rival that of 1608 1610. He would have been working concurrently on De Gli Habiti and the additional twenty plates commissioned by Bucretius to complement the earlier Tabulae anatomicae for Casseri which was published with Spieghels De humani corporis fabrica libri decem in 1627, which marks his last securely dated printed work. A number of undated works survive from Fialettis career, and based on stylistic characteristics, length of commission and variation in the appearance of his signature or monogram, several can be placed in at the end of his middle period or in his mature period. One such work is the Disegni Varii di Polifilo
171

O. Fialetti, De gli habiti religioni con le armi, Venetia (Marco Sadeler) 1626. [BL, Rare Books, 4520.d.8] The book contains a number of inscriptions made by both John Bargrave and Archbishop Tillotson. On the inside cover is the name of the original owner in Italian, presumably written during his stay there: Giovanni Bargrave in pen and brown ink. Following this on one of several blank pages is the inscription (also in pen and brown ink, but in a different hand): Cantorbury, July 26th. 1680. Mrs. Bargrave gave me this Book for a remembrance of her husband Dr John Bargrave.Canon of this Church. Jo. Tillotson. Following this is a hand-written index, organising the contents by the founders of the orders and alphabetising them. Directly following the index on the final page, is the inscription: Mancono / Les Peres de la Mission en France / Pere Vincent premier fondateur / a [one word here is illegible] Paris. / Padri del Oratorio. S. Pho Neri. This inscription is of interest, as neither of these orders appears in either the 1626 or 1658 editions, and must be the owners attempt to update the book with more additional religious orders which were of importance to him. On the first title page at the bottom in light black or grey ink is the inscription Ricardi Symonds, and under that in brown ink (in the same hand as the inside cover) is: Giovanni Bargrave Inglese. Of these three owners, John Tillotson (1630 1694) is the most famous. He was a graduate and fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge in 1651, and was later appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Richard Symonds (1617 c.1692) visited Italy in 1650-52, and while there kept a notebook concerning painting. See: R.D. Harley, Literature on Technical Aspects of the Arts, Manuscripts in the British Museum, Studies in Conservation 14, 1969, 6. Symonds also purchased a copy of Il vero modo, which is dated 1647, suggesting it is a later copy. A. Brookes, Richard Symonds and Thomas Isham as Collectors of Prints in Seventeenth-Century Italy, in E. Chaney, ed., The Evolution of English Collecting, 343. John Bargrave (bap. 1610-1680) was a Church of England clergyman, and later served as vice-dean of Canterbury Cathedral (following in the footsteps of his uncle who was dean in the second quarter of the 17th century. From 1645 until the Restoration, Bargrave travelled Europe, collecting small items and curiosities and cataloguing them. For further information see S. Bann, Bargrave, John, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford 2004.

110

Zancarli (vertical format) [Figs. 3.104-3.105], an ornamental pattern book.172 Each plate contains a composition based on a large floral ornament, upon which are placed mythological figures and creatures. The title page contains two grotesque male torsos blossoming out of vines and leaves that then surround the base of the central inscription, and describes the intended reader as those who make their profession from drawing.173 In this sense, through copying the work of Zancarli in a way which seems to emphasise differences only in style rather than formula, he is encouraging other artists, rather than students, to use pattern books in their composition of plates, rather than exploring more creative processes. The second plate of the series depicts A Satyr carrying off a satyress, and although the work is ornamental the energy of Fialettis style is obvious.174 The movement created in each etching is based on the spiral motif, and the opposing movement of each of the floral patterns and figures. At the edges of the print are very quickly drawn grapes, adding to the sense of spontaneity in the work. This book of ornament differs from the earlier Trophies and Friezes in that he has reduced the amount of extraneous detail in each print, in order to better focus the eye of the viewer on the
172

Polifilo Zancarli is the Venetian dialectic of Polifilo Giancarli. He was a minor 17th century draughtsman and engraver and is mentioned in the following works. T. Nappo and P. Noto, Indice Biografico Italiano, v. 4, London and New York 1993, 1427. G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie istoriche degli intagliatori, Siena 1805-1815. F. De Boni, Biografia degli artisti, Venezia 1840. G.K. Nagler, Neues allgemeines Knstler Lexicon, Mnchen 1835-1852. O. Fialetti, Disegni Varii di Polifilo Zancarli. Etching, each 235x146mm. [BM, 168.a.25, 1936,1030.1.1-10] This particular copy is bound into a book, however the order of etchings differs from that given by Bartsch, and thus one can assume that the Metropolitan Museum of Art set of prints is unbound. The variation in the order of the plates is given in the appendix. In addition to these two copies (of which only the BM copy is complete), the British Museum also holds four additional plates from another copy. O. Fialetti, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli: Title page. Etching, 230x143mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1862,0712.576] O. Fialetti, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli: Satyr and two putti playing a lute and pipes. Etching, 236x146mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.57]. O. Fialetti, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli: A lion attacking two satyrs. Etching, 233x147mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.58] O. Fialetti, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli: A satyr carrying a satyress on his shoulders. Etching, 243x144mm. [BM, Italian, XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.59] 173 Fialetti is not named in the title page, but his monogram appears on a number of the plates and the style is consistent with his oeuvre. See No. 35, Appendix III. 174 Labelled on the bottom, POLIPHILVS GIANCARLI. In. and OF Inci. It should be noted that while a number of the plates are labelled in this, or a similar way, they are written in a slightly different style.

111

sense of movement, and to emphasise both solid forms and voids in his composition. The fifth etching, depicting a Lion attacking two satyrs, is indicative of Fialettis interest in anatomy, and his training under Tintoretto, whose anatomical shorthand we see in use here on the rightmost satyr.175 The seventh plate, Satyr and putti carrying a fish, appears as a more mature depiction of the concepts he explored in the Tritons and Nereids series of 1610.176 The final three prints of the series are all scenes of satyrs fighting other beasts, Satyr attacking a monster, Satyr fighting a centaur, and Satyr, putti and dogs fighting a dragon.177 Of the three, the Satyr fighting a centaur looks to be the earliest, as it contains the longest inscription and places the book publication in Venice.178 It appears more like a sketch, as he tries to copy Polifilo Zancarli whilst translating the image into a small print, and experimenting with the thickness and volume of the vines and flowering plants that make up the majority of the picture.179 Proportionally, the ornament is much thinner than the other prints and more quickly drawn in.

Presumably from the same year is the horizontal format of the Disegni Vari di Polifilo Zancarli.180 Like the vertical version, it is an ornamental pattern book based primarily on

175

POLIPHILVS GIANCARLI. In. and OF Inci. It must be noted here that Fialettis use of the anatomical shorthand, the system of curves to delineate volume and motion, is used in an informed pattern, which shows us his growing mastery of anatomy by this point in his career, though the proposed date range still places it before his work on Casseris anatomy. It should also be noted that this particular plate is missing from the series in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 176 Polifilo Giancarli Inv and OF. In particular, the satyr/triton in this print can be compared to the triton in the third print of the Tritons and Nereids series. 177 Quite unusually, the etching of Satyr attacking a monster is the only unsigned print in the series, and also contains no reference to Polifilo Zancarli. The print is the only one of the nine that lacks an delineated edge and lower border. 178 Polifilo Giancarli. Inventor., and OF Incidebat. Venetiis. The right edge of the print is faded, and overall this is one of the lightest imprints of the book. 179 For similar pattern books, see: S. Jervis, A Seventeenth-Century Book of Engraved Ornament, The Burlington Magazine 128, 1986, 893-903. 180 O. Fialetti, Disegni Vari di Polifilo Zancarli. Etching, each 125x441mm. Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna. This book is comprised of a title page and 12 plates, the only complete copy of which

112

floral motifs and mythological creatures. The dedicatory inscription on the title page is identical to that in the vertical Disegni Varii, though it is dedicated to Daniel Nys (as opposed to Pietro Guoro in the vertical format).181 The book is of a similar quality and ornamental type and the figures differ only in that they are slightly more muscular.

These two pattern books enjoyed a great success and later dissemination in the years after their production. In the collection of the British Museum alone, one finds a cross-section of copies, indicative of their readership and popularity. The first copy after Fialettis vertical edition of Disegni Varii was created by an unknown Dutch artist.182 The copy is in reverse and in most cases retains the original attribution of the design to Polifilo Zancarli. This copy can however be traced to Fialettis designs by the incorrect inclusion of the OF Inci inscription at the bottom right of the etching depicting A satyr and three putti carrying a large fish.183 In general the copies are very faithful to Fialettis etchings, though the artist often smoothes the hurried lines and adds more cross-hatching to intensify the chiaroscuro. A second copy, this time a reduced, reversed copy after the

appears to be in Vienna. The British Museum has one mounted etching from this series, the Horizontal frieze with a satyr carrying off a nymph. Etching, 122x429mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, U,5.60].It should be noted that this particular plate is called A satyr assaulting a nymph by Bartsch, and is the fourth image after the title page. As given by Bartsch, the plates are arranged in the following order: A satyr ravishing a nymph; Three putti and a triton seen from behind; A centaur with a nymph, and two satyrs fighting chimerical beasts; A satyr assaulting a nymph; A winged woman accompanied by putti; A winged woman accompanied by putti (on the left); A standing child, a child trampled by an ostrich and an old satyress; A man killing a serpent, a woman, children and dogs; A dog suckled by a chimerical animal, a dragon biting a man, and children; A triton armed with a club and shield defending himself against a panther; A man armed with a sword and dagger defending himself against two bears; and A satyr defending himself against a lion. 181 Like the previous book, Fialetti is not mentioned in the title page, but is named as the etcher on subsequent pages, the formula for which is variable. No. 36, Appendix III. 182 Unknown Dutch artist, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli, (copies after plates 4-9). Etching, each approximately 245x151mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1871,1209.454-459] 183 Unknown Dutch artist, Disegni varii di Polifilo Zancarli: A satyr and three putti carrying a large fish. Etching, 248x149mm. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1871,1209.457]

113

horizontal Disegni Varii is by Dutch artist Claes Jansz Visscher, from 1636.184 Like the copy by the unnamed Dutch artist, Visschers copy lacks the energy of Fialettis original. The figures and etched lines are increasingly regularised and calculated, creating an artificial sense of depth and stillness. This style is of course much more indicative of the Dutch baroque tradition into which the book of ornament was absorbed, as opposed to retaining its original Italianate vigour. Even earlier than this 1636 copy, is the 1628 Paris edition of the horizontal Disegni Vari by Luca Ciamberlano for Cassiano dal Pozzo, which retains the original sense of line, movement and weight of the design and figures.185 The inscription on the title page does not mention Fialetti which may indicate either that it was done after the original by Polifilo Zancarli, or that Ciamberlano has simply omitted Fialetti as copyist in his attribution. Ciamberlanos title page bears a striking similarity to Fialettis in its execution and the treatment of the figures. The top of the frame surrounding the text has been made more detailed, and the image has been reversed. It is important to note the dates on these copies after Fialetti, 1628 and 1636 are both within the lifetime of the artist, which support the assertion that he would have etched the original plates around the end of his middle period or the beginning of his mature period. It also attests to the immense popularity of such a pattern book, that at least three different copies were published and sold as far away as Paris and the Netherlands and retained the connection to Fialetti, often through the continued inclusion of his monogram.
184

C.J. Visscher, Verscheden Aerdige Morissen van Polifilo Zancarli geordineert ende Gedruckt by Claes Jansz Visscher. Engraving, each 68x272mm, 1636. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, G.g,4g.28-36] This set contains impressions after the title page and plates 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13. The title page is of the same format as Fialettis original: VERSCHEYDEN AERDIGE / MORISSEN / van / POLIFILO ZANCARLI / geordineert / ende / Gedruckt by Claes Jansz Visscher / A.O 1636. 185 No. 37, Appendix III. The inscriptions may indicate that Ciamberlano copied the work directly from Zancarlis original, however due to its rarity I have been unable to study it past a digital reproduction of the title page.

114

5. Conclusion Interestingly, there are no printed works dated between 1630 and his death in 1638. He may have undertaken a different sort of activity by this point in his life, however there is no evidence to substantiate this. Primary documentation relating to Fialettis commissions, fees, prints runs, and studio practice is rare. However, if we consider the list of known patrons for his printed works, it reads like a list of noble Venetian families, ambassadors, English aristocracy, artists, and notable contemporary figures, and it is therefore likely that he remained popular throughout his lifetime, especially regarding his printed material. While we can assume that patronage would obviously come from figures and families with the financial means to support such projects, Fialettis list of patrons is impressive, and it begs the question of how such an artist with such a varied printed oeuvre, and interacting with some of the greatest patrons and minds of the Seicento could be overlooked.

For Fialetti, the printed medium was incredibly dynamic and expressive. As an artist instructed by Tintoretto to draw and then draw again, his ease of expression in the etched medium seems only natural, as its execution is the most similar of all artistic media to the act of drawing. And it is perhaps because of this ease, that he is often named as one of the best etchers in the Veneto during the Seicento.186 His maturation and the development of his personal style is most readily apparent in his printed works (as opposed to his paintings), as they span the entire length and breadth of his career. From his early etchings, characterised by the fine lines and carefully controlled figures, he took much of

186

S. Massari and F. Negri Arnoldi, Arte e Scienza dellIncisione, 213. A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, 635.

115

his inspiration from mannerist sensibilities and the predominant style of Tintoretto, focusing on line, light and the importance of chiaroscuro. This particular period is also characterised by smaller commissions, single prints instead of larger series or books. By 1608, however, Fialettis reputation as a competent etcher became known and he received larger, more comprehensive commissions from increasingly important patrons. His personal style also develops, as he begins to abandon the excessively careful early technique for that with more variation in line, weight, creating an exciting sense of movement and vivacity. In his printed works, Fialetti demonstrates his growing exposure to a variety of other printed sources, anatomy texts, pattern books, and literary works, integrating himself into the fabric of the Venetian book trade and culture of printed materials, and working with Italian and Northern European publishers in the city. His contacts and collaborators within the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori grows, and by his mature period, Fialetti worked with some of the most influential publishers in the city, attesting to his own importance in the Venetian book trade as an artist and etcher.187 His mature work from around 1619 onward is a natural progression from the middle period, increasing in length and complexity as Fialetti gained recognition for his facility with the printed medium. Quite appropriately, it is from this mature period that his illustrations for Casseri were created, which in a fashion, summarise his technical ability and style. They not only contain references to his earlier work, but also attest to his good disegno and ability to naturalistically capture the human body in a visually exciting way which had previously not been seen, but most especially in the context of an anatomy textbook.

187

Santo Grillo, Giovanni Alberti, Giovanni Antonio and Giacomo di Franceschi, Giacomo Sarzina, Evangelista Deuchino, and Antonio Bariletti were all elected to positions of importance within the guild (Sindici, de Zonta, Di Rispetto, scribe, etc.) during their membership, Sarzina in particular acting as Prior for a number of years. Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, Arti, b.163 (books 1-3). [ASV]

116

Chapter IV: Fialetti and Anatomy

1. Introduction The printing and illustration of anatomical treatises was, by the sixteenth century, a forte of the Venetian press. From Johannes de Kethams 1493 Fasiculo di Medicina to Andreas Vesalius famous De humani corporis fabrica of 1543, anatomists from Padua and beyond came to the city for its renowned engravers and printers.1 Because of its geographic proximity to one of the foremost seats of medical study at Padua, the Venetian anatomical tradition relied on scholarship from the university to inform the work of the artists and printmakers who would illustrate their texts. Following the general trend of the printed image in Venice, many well known and established artists were involved in the production of books and series. Among the list of artists historically named as being involved in anatomical illustration are Titian and his student Jan Stephan van Calcar (who is thought to have illustrated Vesalius Fabrica), Palma il Giovane, Tintoretto and Odoardo Fialetti. In the cases of Palma and Tintoretto, both showed an interest in anatomy, though neither was adept at its execution. Fialetti, who follows the precedent set by van Calcar, the disciple of a famous master, illustrated a major anatomical atlas, which would be reproduced and copied years after his death, and whose originality was not surpassed until the eighteenth century. Fialettis original 77 plates for

For an overview of the importance of the printed work for the scientific treatise, see E.L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe, Cambridge and New York 2005. A. Grafton, The Importance of Being Printed, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 11, 1980, 265-286.

117

Giulio Casseris anatomy were completed by 1616 and later combined with Adrian Spieghels text to create the famous 1627 De humani corporis fabrica libri decem.2

This chapter will examine the general history of anatomical illustration, the unique circumstances facilitated by the Venetian milieu to aid in the production of the work, Fialettis involvement with Casseri and Valesius, his exposure to other anatomies, and the impact of the De humani corporis fabrica libri decem on his own art and later anatomical treatises. The interest in this aspect of Fialettis oeuvre lies in the fact that he serves as a relatively early figure bridging the gap between art, the printed book and anatomy, and thus has a significant impact on subsequent generations of artists. This anatomical study was not unidirectional: that is, Fialetti not only contributed an artistic vision to anatomists and medical students, but also took from the anatomists a working knowledge of the human body and its portrayal in art, which has been noted in the context of his printed and painted works. His interdisciplinarity is indicative of the changing role of the artist during a unique time in history that marked the rise in the importance of the book, a shifting art market and the increase in accessibility of science. I will first introduce a broad history of anatomical illustration, and address its place in Venice, and the roles of the artist and anatomist up to the Seicento. Fialettis relationship with Casseri and

Many copies of the 1627 edition of A. Spieghels De humani corporis fabrica libri decem are still in existence. I have had the opportunity to consult one copy of the full text, and one facsimile reprint of G. Casseris Tabulae anatomicae LXXIIX (often inappropriately referred to as the Placentini). See: G. Casseri, and D. Bucretius, Ivlii Casserii Placentini... tabulae anatomicae LXXIIX; XX quae deerant suppleuit et omnium explicationes addidit. Venetis 1627, limited edition facsimile reprint [WEL] A. Spieghel, De humani corporis fabrica libri decem. Venetis (Evangelistam Deuchinum) 1627. [BNM, 097.D.012] Several later editions of Spieghels work also exist, most notably the Frankfurt 1632 edition, which with its small plates and poor quality may be a pirate copy, and the Amsterdam edition of 1645. A. Spieghel, De humani corporis fabrica libri decem. Francofvrti (Matthaei Meriani) 1632. [BL, Rare Books, 1482.c.34(1)] A. Spieghel, Opera quae extant omnia. Amsterdami (Iohannem Blaev) 1645. [BL, Rare Books, 789.i.21] A. Spieghel, Opera quae extant omnia. Amsterdami (Iohannem Blaev) 1645. [WEL, F.363]

118

Valesius will be discussed in the context of his illustrations and their influence, as well as the roles of Spieghel and Bucretius. Finally, the production, distribution and impact of the 1627 De humani corporis fabrica libri decem will be analysed, with special emphasis on both copies after the work and copies influenced by it.

2. History of the Anatomical Treatise Before discussing the anatomical treatise in the Seicento, one must first address the anatomical heritage of Italy.3 The history of anatomy and its uses is one often studied, but relegated only to certain centres of learning throughout Europe and the Middle East. From its inception as a discipline of both medicine and natural philosophy in ancient Greece, one can see that it fulfilled a desire to know oneself internally and spiritually, thus manifesting itself in texts, demonstrations and later art. Early classical learning from Aristotle, Herophilus, Erasistratus, Hippocrates and Galen, was lost to Western Europe in the Middle Ages through a change in cultural emphasis from classicism to Christianity and back.4 For perhaps 800 years, from 200AD (the time of Galen), until the entrance of

For information on the history of dissection, anatomy and its iconography, see. A. Cunningham, The Kinds of Anatomy, Medical History 19, 1975, 1-19. G. Ferrari, Public Anatomy Lessons and the Carnival: the Anatomy Theatre of Bologna, Past and Present 117, 1987, 50-106. C.J. Klestinec, Civility, Comportment, and the Anatomy Theatre: Girolamo Fabrici and his Medical Students at Padua, Renaissance Quarterly 60, 2007, 434-463. A. Patrizio and D. Kemp, Anatomy Acts: How we come to know ourselves, exh. cat., City Art Centre Edinburgh 13/05/06 09/07/06, Edinburgh 2006. L. Premuda, Storia dellIconografia Anatomica, Padua 1993. More sources on topics including pre-Vesalian anatomy, renaissance anatomy, Vesalius and artistic anatomy are addressed in subsequent footnotes. 4 Though early anatomists held a basic interest in the structure and to a lesser degree the function, of the body, the primary focus of anatomical study was that of a philosophical nature, interested in the function of the body in connection with the soul and the essential nature of being alive. The significance of Aristotelian anatomy lies not in his contribution to the true understanding of the field as a science in its own right, but in his ideas on the soul and its later transmutation into an acceptable Christian school of thought until the sixteenth century. Aristotelian naturalism, that is, the reality of observable things, has been noted by some as being the dominant philosophy from the late medieval period through the early renaissance (D.H.D. Roller, Science and the Fine Arts: Reflections of Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Naturalism, Leonardo 13, 1980, 97). the importance of anatomy for The death of Galen around 200AD marked the end of classical anatomising in the west, though it was retained by Muslim and some Byzantine scholars for

119

Constantine the African around 1070, there was a period of stagnation in anatomical and medical knowledge.5 From that date, anatomical knowledge was both re-invented and rediscovered through new scholarship, translation and discovery of ancient texts respectively.6 In addition to the writings of the anatomists themselves, critical writings about the anatomists and their ideas, practises and followers have been an integral part of the history of the discipline since at least the sixteenth century, with Vesalius critiques of Galen and his lack of accuracy in the use of animal specimens.

The University of Bologna was the first to adopt the ancient practice of dissection in order to study human anatomy within the context of medical and surgical training, with Mundinus in the early fourteenth century.7 The revival of dissection was one which prompted the reinvention of anatomy into the discipline which produced such scholars throughout Europe including Johannes de Ketham, Andreas Vesalius, Fabricius,

study in Rhazes and Avicenna (C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels. 1514-1564, 9). The emphasis had shifted from classical philosophy to a new Christian ideology, the latter of which did not yet have a place within its structure for the importance of anatomy to the soul, and so it fell into disregard for nearly eight centuries. 5 G.W. Corner, Anatomical Texts of the Earlier Middle Ages: A Study in the Transmission of Culture, Washington D.C. 1927, 11. For more information on pre-Vesalian anatomy, see. L.R. Lind, Studies in PreVesalian Anatomy, Philadelphia 1975. N.G. Siraisi, Taddeo Alderotti and his Pupils: Two Generations of Italian Medical Learning, Princeton and Guildford 1981. 6 Despite common misconceptions, the Vatican never issued a bull forbidding the dissection of the human corpse. The fear of desecration of the body after death stems originally from Jewish tradition and a deepseeded fear in the general population concerning damnation. The Bible only once mentions desecration of the body: do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:28). The sole ecclesiastical document relating to the treatment of the body after death came from Pope Boniface VIIIs bull of 1299, which forbid the practice of boiling bones of those who died in foreign countries for return home, but did not address dissection (despite its use against the practice) (C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels. 1514-1564, 14). A statement circulated in 1340 in Paris illustrates this misconception, or perhaps an ultra-conservative theological view, when it claimed that: ...the Church prohibits dissection of the human body (C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels. 1514-1564, 16). 7 G. Ferrari, Public Anatomy Lessons and the Carnival: the Anatomy Theatre of Bologna, Past and Present 117, 1987, 53.

120

Fallopius, and William Harvey.8

With the rise in the importance of dissection for

anatomists came the increase in illustrated treatises for use in conjunction with a particular anatomists series of lectures during the course of a dissection, as well as for use during periods in which dissection was not possible (due to conditions, shortage of bodies, local prohibitions, etc.). Though its popularity was increasing, not every anatomical text was illustrated (either in full or with examples).9 With the advent of Andreas Vesalius De humani corporis fabrica libri septem, however, a new standard for the anatomical atlas was set.10 This emphasis placed on the illustrated treatise can be

For further reading on anatomy in the renaissance see. K. Adler and M. Pointon, eds., The Body Imaged: The Human Form and Visual Culture Since the Renaissance, Cambridge 1993. A. Carlino, Books of the Body: Anatomical Ritual and Renaissance Learning, Chicago and London 1999. A. Cunningham, The Anatomical Renaissance: The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients, Aldershot and Brookfield 1997. R.J. Durling, A Chronological Census of Renaissance Editions and Translations of Galen, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24, 1961, 230-305. R. French, Dissection and Vivisection in the European Renaissance, Aldershot and Brookfield 1999. L. Gent and N. Llewellyn, eds., Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture c. 1540 1660, London 1990. C.E. Kellett, A Note on Rosso and the Illustrations to Charles Estiennes De Dissectione, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 12, 1957, 325-336. M. Kornell, Rosso Fiorentino and the Anatomical Text, The Burlington Magazine 131, 1989, 842-847. K. Park, The Criminal and Saintly Body: Autopsy and Dissection in Renaissance Italy, Renaissance Quarterly 47, 1994, 1-33. J. Sawday, The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the human body in Renaissance Culture, London and New York 1995. N.G. Siraisi, Anatomising the Past: Physicians and History in Renaissance Culture, Renaissance Quarterly 53, 2000, 1-30. 9 For examples of Cinquecento anatomies lacking illustration, see: C. Bauhin, De Corporis humani fabrica: Libri IIII, Basiliae (Sebastianum Henricpetri) 1590. [BNM, 11.D.236] R. Colombo, De re anatomica, Paris, 1562. [NLS, NRR, RB.s.686(1)] L. Fuchs, De Humani Corporis fabrica Pars Prima, Lugduni (Ioannem Frellonium) 1551. [BNM, 4.D.208.1] For more information on early illustrated anatomies before Vesalius, see: F.H. Garrison, The Principles of Anatomic Illustration Before Vesalius, New York 1926. 10 For further information on historical artistic anatomies, their development and relation to the visual arts, see the following works. A. Carlino, Know Thyself: Anatomical figures in Early Modern Europe, Res 27, 1995, 52-69. M. Cazort, Paper Bodies, Print Quarterly 18, 2001, 220-225. L. Choulant, M. Frank, F.H. Garrison, E.C. Streeter and C. Singer, History and Bibliography of Anatomic Illustration, Cambridge MA (reprint) of 1852 original. G. Harcourt, Andreas Vesalius and the Anatomy of Antique Sculpture, Representations 17, Special Issue: The Cultural Display of the Body 1987, 28-61. W.M. Ivins, The Woodcuts to Vesalius, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art XXXI, no. 7, 1936, 139-142. L. Jordanova, Art and Anatomy, Print Quarterly 14, 1997, 430-432. M. Kemp, Bodyscapes: Images of Human Anatomy from the Collections of St Andrews University, exh. booklet, Crawford Arts Centre 25 August 24 September 1995, St Andrews 1995. M. Kemp and M. Wallace, Spectacular Bodies: The Art and Science of the Human Body from Leonardo to Now, exh. cat., 19 October 2000 14 January 2001, Hayward Gallery, London 2000. M. Kornell, Artists and the Study of Anatomy in Sixteenth-Century Italy, PhD Thesis, University of London, Warburg Institute 1993. M. Kornell, Drawings for Bartolomeo Passarottis Book of Anatomy, in Drawing 1400 1600: Invention and Innovation, S. Currie, ed., Aldershot and Brookfield 1998, 172-188. A.H. Mayor, Artists and Anatomists, Metropolitan Museum of

121

related to the changing philosophical climate of the late Cinquecento and early Seicento. Because of its origins in classical schools of thought, anatomy has typically been regarded and categorised in accordance with its underlying philosophical origins, and more accurately, the renaissance interpretation of those origins into Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Naturalism.11 From their inception, the application of Platonic and Aristotelian thought to anatomy were at odds: the former relying on the view that ideas, thoughts and models are real and that things or objects are poor imitations after those ideal concepts, while the latter bases itself on the reality of things which can be observed, stating that the concept and theory accompanying it is not real.12 The impact that these shifting schools of thought had on individual anatomists and their successors will be discussed, especially with reference to the revival of Aristotelian Naturalism as a precursor to both Vesalius and Casseri.

The sixteenth century was arguably one of the most important in the course of anatomical history and illustration. One finds a shift towards increased detail in text and representation as well as a move toward a physiological approach: determining how the
Art, New York 1984. D. Petherbridge, ed., The Quick and the Dead: Artists and Anatomy, exh. cat., Royal College of Art 28/10/97 24/11/97, London 1997. M. Rippa Bonati and J. Pardo-Toms, Il Teatro dei Corpi: Le Pitture Colorate dAnatomia di Girolamo Fabrici dAquapendente, Milan 2004. B. Rhrl, History and Bibliography of Artistic Anatomy, Hildesheim, Zrich and New York 2000. J.B. de C. Saunders and C.D OMalley, The Illustrations from the Works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels, New York 1950. J.B. Schultz, The Theory and Practice of Artistic Anatomy during the Italian Renaissance, PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh 1982. J.B. Schultz, Art and Anatomy in Renaissance Italy, Ann Arbor 1985. H.E. Sigerist, Two Fifteenth Century Anatomical Drawings, Bulletin of the History of Medicine XIII, 1943, 313-319. M. Vne, corchs: Lexploration du corps XIVe XVIIIe sicle, Bibliothque Nationale de France, Paris 2001. 11 Though Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies were the dominant forces in the intellectual climate of the period, it must be noted that other philosophies were influential in the context of anatomy and medicine, most notably that of Galen, who ascribed to a type of Platonism later adopted by Muslim and Christian scholars. For the sake of this discussion, however, I will be omitting Galenism as a philosophy outside of discourse on Vesalius because of its overall redundancy with that upon which it is based. 12 D.H.D. Roller, Science and the Fine Arts: Reflections of Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Naturalism, 192.

122

body works as opposed to how it looks. The sixteenth century also marked the greatest Aristotelian revival since its implementation as a cornerstone of study at the major Italian universities in the thirteenth century.13 Early anatomical texts were often reprinted in Venice,14 whose reputation was quickly evolving into the printing capital of Europe, and was especially renowned for its community of artists, engravers (both woodblock, and later copperplate) and printers. The revival of classical scientific texts served not only to form the foundations of renaissance anatomy, but also, as Anthony Grafton states, to illustrate the unique collaboration between innovative scholars and responsive printers which occurred in Venice during the Cinquecento and Seicento.15

2.1. Vesalius and the Illustrated Anatomical Treatise Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) is the most well-known Renaissance anatomist, due in part to the wide dissemination of his written works, the Tabulae anatomicae of 1538, De humani corporis fabrica of 1543, and the Epitome of the Fabrica in that same year, which overturned many long-standing anatomical mistakes.16 These works were officially published in Venice, Basel and Paris in the early years, and reproduced in any number of crude copies by less skilful woodcutters throughout Europe. Shortly after receiving his doctorate from the University of Padua, and still relatively early in his professional
13

A. Cunningham, The Anatomical Renaissance: The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients, 168. 14 A. Cunningham, The Anatomical Renaissance: The Resurrection of the Anatomical Projects of the Ancients, 79. 15 A. Grafton, The Importance of Being Printed, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 11, 1980, 279. 16 For further reading on Vesalian anatomy, see. R. Eriksson, ed., Andreas Vesalius First Public Anatomy at Bologna 1540: an eyewitness report, Uppsala and Stockholm 1959. C.J. Klestinec, Theatrical Dissections and Dancing Cadavers: Andreas Vesalius and Sixteenth-Century Popular Culture, PhD Thesis, University of Chicago 2001. N.G. Siraisi, Vesalius and Human Diversity in De Humani Corporis Fabrica, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 57, 1994, 60-88. N.G. Siraisi, Vesalius and the Reading of Galens Teleology, Renaissance Quarterly 50, 1997, 1-37. W. Wiegand, S.W. Lambert and W.M. Ivins Jr., Three Vesalian Essays to accompany the Icones Anatomicae of 1934, New York 1952.

123

career, Vesalius created the famous Tabulae anatomicae or Tabulae sex, comprised of six large woodcut illustrations, of the skeleton, and portal, caval and arterial systems, each of which is accompanied by a brief text.17 The Tabulae marked the first significant effort in the creation of drawings for physicians and surgeons, as opposed to artists (which would occur later), and was the first accurate representation of Galens proposed physiology, complete with common errors.18 The illustrations of the organs were drawn by Vesalius himself, while the skeletons were the creation of the artist Jan Stephan van Calcar, who was also responsible for the famous woodcut prints.19 The relationship between the anatomist and artist was at its earliest stage (in the context of Venice) here, and is confirmed in a letter ...and to these plates I have added others in which Jan Stephan, an outstanding artist of our time, has most appropriately depicted in three positions my skeleton recently constructed for my students, as well as a scroll at the base of a tree trunk in the posterior view of the skeleton: Imprimebat Venetijs C. Vitalis Venetus sumptibus Ioannis Stephani Calcarensis.20

Vesalius Fabrica21 demonstrates a familiarity with all his predecessors work, including the major Italian anatomists to whom he would not have had an introduction at Paris,

17

C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: 1514-1564, 85. Each illustration is approximately 418x297mm. 18 C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: 1514-1564, 84. 19 D. Rosand and M. Muraro, Titian and the Venetian Woodcut, exh. cat National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. 1976, 212. For further information on the debate concerning the identity of the artist working with Vesalius, see: F. Guerra, The Identity of the Artists Involved in Vesalius Fabrica of 1543, Medical History XIII, 1969, 37-50. 20 Ibid. 21 C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: 1514-1564, 101. Many copies of the Fabrica still exist in libraries and collections throughout the world. While variant copies exist, they are usually attributed to a mistake in printing, rather than a unique printing. A. Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica, Basiliae (Johannes Oporinus) 1543. [NLS, NRR, Am.1.23] Copies after the Fabrica are also numerous and were produced as early as 1545. See: T. Geminus, Compendiosa totius anatomie delineato, London (Ioanni Herfordie) 1545. [BL, Rare Books, C.70.i.2]

124

Alessandro Achillini, Berengario da Carpi, and Venetian Nicolo Massa.22 Despite its revolutionary status as a text, especially for those without ready access to cadavers for dissection, the Fabrica was often too detailed for those with little medical knowledge and thus the Epitome of the Fabrica was produced, in which the illustration took precedence over the text.23 The Fabrica is divided into seven books, each of which of was illustrated not only with the more famous skeletons [Fig 4.1 and 4.2] and muscle men, but also with small diagrams. The Vesalian texts create a precedence for the cooperation of the artist and anatomist, and in particular an artist who specialises in, or shows a natural facility for, anatomy whilst under the shadow of his more famous master. The relationship between Jan Stephan van Calcar and Titian directly foreshadows that between Odoardo Fialetti and Tintoretto.

Both Vesalius Fabrica and Epitome were widely distributed and copied, for over 60 years following their original publication. The books were used not only by anatomists, but also by artists interested in the correct formation of the musculature of the body, including Diego Velsquez and Inigo Jones.24 In addition to its presence in the artists library, the use of Vesalian examples can also be traced back to the practice of academies

22 23

C.D. OMalley, Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: 1514-1564, 121-122. The Epitome is of a larger size than the Fabrica and therefore does not use the original plates, though they were produced in the same year by the same printer. A. Vesalius, suorum de humani corporis fabrica librorum Epitome, Basilae (Johannes Oporinus) 1543. [BL, Rare Books, C.18.e.4] See also: L.R. Lind, The Epitome of Andreas Vesalius, New York 1949. 24 For an example of anatomical treatises in the artists library, see: J. Bialostocki, Doctus Artifex and the Library of the Artist in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, in De Arte e Libris: Festschrift Erasmus, 1934 1984, 11-22. J.B. Bury, El Grecos Books, Burlington Magazine CXXIX, 1987, 388-391. King Charles I was given a copy of Vesalius Fabrica by Inigo Jones, who had used it previously for his own artistic studies. See J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art and the Practice of Drawing, The Art Bulletin 74, 1992, 258-259.

125

of art in Italy and the North, as attested to by their presence on a wall in a drawing of the Berlin Academy by August Terwesten of 1696, as cited by L. Olmstead Tonelli.25

3. The 1604 Venetian Fabrica One copy of the Fabrica dating from 1604 originates from Venice and offers an example of the supremacy of Venetian engravers in the delicacy of line and quality of the reproduction.26 On the frontispiece, there is a small inscription attributing the engravings to F. Valegio in the lower right corner of the print. Valegio, as previously mentioned in the previous chapter, is often found working with Fialetti. He is a lesser figure whose style is somewhat more static and dependant on fine detail, and is described as a most competent draughtsman,27 as opposed to a sense of movement and vigour and the genius with which Fialettis disegno is often described. His mastery of the human form is not

25

L. Olmstead Tonelli, Academic Practice in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Children of Mercury, Providence 1984, 106, fig. 82. For further information on academic practice and the importance of anatomy, see Chapter III. 26 Two copies of this book are in the British Library, one standard copy and one with an attribution to Valesius, which lacks information on the engraver in the title page. A. Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica, Venetiis (Anton: et Iacobum de Francisis) 1604. [BL, Rare Books, 548.m.11, signature copy]; and De humani corporis fabrica, Venetiis (Anton: et Iacobum de Franciscis) 1604. [BL, Rare Books, 435.k.1] There are significant discrepancies in the setting of the plates between the two copies, and it appears that the 435.k1 is a different edition. The copy numbered 548.m.11 is set higher than its counterpart, and tends to have a consistent lower margin of 1cm. 435.k.1, on the other hand, has a lower margin of cm on a number of plates. The title page of the signature copy is correctly aligned and appears straight when compared to the edges of the page, whereas the other copy (435.k.1) has a crooked title page, suggesting that either the plate or the paper wasnt aligned during the printing, and the lower margin expands from cm at the left to 1 cm on the right. The copy numbered 435.k.1 lacks the anatomical tables after the Index as seen in 548.m.11, but also contains Fabricius anatomy in five books, followed by two pages of illustrations of surgical instruments. 435.k.1 (hereafter referred to as the long copy) was owned previously by Jos: Banks, attested to by a signature on the verso of the title page. There is also a discrepancy in the watermarks and countermarks of the paper used. In the signature copy there appears to be the inverted clover countermark in the upper right margin of the page illustrating QVINTA MVSCVLORVM TABVLA. However due to the tight binding of the book, and ageing of the paper, the watermarks are not visible. On the back flyleaf, inverted both horizontally and vertically, there is a large watermark which appears to read I DURAND surmounted by a large crown and detailing. The long copy lacks the large watermark on the back flyleaf, but like the signature copy, the tight binding obscures the visibility of many watermarks. One countermark is clearly visible on OCTAVA, taking the inverted clover formula with indistinct definition on either side. 27 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, Bologna (Per lErede di Domenico Barbieri) 1678, 110.

126

evident in many of his works (with the exceptions of those after drawings by Fialetti) and therefore it is my opinion that Fialetti provided the initial drawings for the frontispiece, as well as drawn copies after Vesalius. The frontispiece lends itself to an initial comparison of the figures which would appear later in the 1627 and 1632 editions of Spieghel. The corch at the left and the skeleton at the right are very similar in posture not only to figures within Vesalius anatomy, but also bear a striking resemblance to those in the later frontispieces, suggesting that the artist had an exposure to Vesalius, which informed the illustrations for Casseri.

The format of the 1604 Vesalius follows the sequence of the 1543 original, and the resulting plates seem to suggest the youth of the copyist/artist with anatomical illustration in a strictly medical context. For example, in the Second Plate of Muscles, the figure is short and compact, lacking the grace of the original.28 The plates also generally lack the detailed Eugenean Hills in the 1543 Fabrica series of corchs. Most telling, however, is the inclusion of earlier anatomical errors: the head is shown as too small for the body, and the hands and feet lack both fine detail and entirely correct proportion, a characteristic which was symptomatic of original Vesalian artist.29 While this is suggestive of the 1604 artists reliance on an original edition (as in later pirated editions these mistakes were often changed or re-worked by subsequent artists)30, it also indicates

28

Vesalius original illustrations were often noted as being shorter and less refined than those of Bernard Siegfried Albinus, with whom he is often compared. See: J. Elkins, Two Conceptions of the Human Form: Bernard Siegfried Albinus and Andreas Vesalius, Artibus et Historiae 7, 1986, 91-106. 29 For more information on anatomical and artistic error in Vesalius, see: M. Kemp, A Drawing for the Fabrica and some thoughts upon the Vesalius Muscle Men, Medical History XIV, 1970, 277-288. 30 An example of this re-working can be seen in the manuscript drawings after Geminus in the Wellcome Collection in which one can see both the changes made by Geminus and then those made by the artist copying Geminus when compared to a Vesalian original. Copies of plates after Andreas Vesalius from the

127

that he had not, to this date, been witness to any dissection or gross anatomy, despite probably having studied the subject informally.

4. Giulio Casseri and Tiberio Fialetti By the beginnings of the Seicento, anatomists, though still utilising Vesalius revolutionary treatise and its formula, were furthering their study of anatomy and pushing the boundaries of its illustration, producing finer figures in more complex, lively poses, and in increasingly detailed landscapes. Of the Seicento anatomists who embarked on this quest for the most naturalistic, energetic illustrated corpse, Giulio Casseri was the most successful. Born circa 1552 in Piacenza, he was the first in the family to take up anatomy.31 Casseris desire to study surgery and anatomy took him to Padua, where he first worked in the home of the eminent anatomist Girolamo Fabrici dAcquapendente, who was at that time still a student, as attested to by his contemporaries: ... [Casseri] went to Padua and put himself into the service of Girolamo Fabrizio [sic], called dAcquapendente.32 From these early days of servitude, they developed a rivalry, Fabricius taking the chair of surgery, and Casseri later taking the chair of anatomy at Padua.33 It is thought that Casseri took a diploma in surgery in 1584, though the exact date is contested because of a lack of documentation.34 From that same year, dated 9 March, there exists a document from the Ospedale di San Francesco, naming the
Fabrica, atlas folio and loose sheets, pen and ink, 450x295mm, early seventeenth century. [WEL, MS.791] 31 G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo (c. 1552 1616), Nuovo Archivio Veneto, (Periodical Publications Archivio Veneto) 18, ser. 3, 210. 32 G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo, 213. Fabricius would later hold the chair of surgery at Padua, and publish his own anatomy in 1600, Theatrum totius animalis fabricae, for which there were planned 300 illustrations, some of which were to be in colour. 33 The relationship between Fabricius and Casseri was a cordial one until 1598. G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo, 218. 34 G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo, 217.

128

graduates taking up surgery posts, including a Dott. Tiberio Bolognese.35 It is my opinion that this mysterious figure may in fact be Tiberio Fialetti,36 elder brother of Odoardo, named by Malvasia in his 1678 Felsina Pittrice: ... his brother, called Tiberio... continued his studies in Philosophy and Medicine.37 Malvasia goes on to state that at the age of 10 (which would have been in 1583 or 1584, dependent on the month), Tiberio asked Odoardo to draw a table of the bones of the foot, and following this taught him the anatomy of the body, which he then drew in a rudimentary treatise.38 The concurrence of these dates (in conjunction with the references to Padua in Malvasia, Masini,39 and the records from the Ospedale di San Francesco), suggest that while Tiberio is not a historically well-known anatomist, his potential connection with Casseri is significant, and the coincidence of their studies at Padua implies that it was through his brother that Odoardo was recommended to Casseri to create the drawings for his anatomical atlas. If these accounts are correct, then Odoardo Fialetti is potentially one of the only artists in the Seicento to benefit from direct anatomical study during his formative years as a child, perhaps while he was being apprenticed to an artist. It would follow naturally that his grasp on anatomy would be much more intuitive than that of his contemporaries and his master, as demonstrated in his fluency with the human body throughout his later oeuvre. Therefore, it is my suggestion that Fialettis place in the
35

Acta Hospitalis S. Francisci ab anno 1553 die 30 Augusti, usque ad annum 1584, die 22 Junii, c. 223. Archivio d. Museo Civico di Padova, Vol. 1023. As cited in G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo, 217. See No. 1, Appendix IV. 36 See Chapter I for further information on Tiberio Fialetti. 37 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice. Vita de pittori Bolognesi. 2 vol. Bologna (Per lErede di Domenico Barbieri), 1678, 313. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3] Tiberio is described as Tiberio Fialetti Bolognese by Masini. A. di Paolo Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, Bologna (Per lErede di Vittorio Benacci) 1666, 636. [BL, Rare Books, 660.a.6] Giving Tiberio Fialetti the designation Bolognese in a book specifically on the most eminent citizens of Bologna suggests that this may have been a common device in naming him. See Nos. 2 and 3, Appendix IV for both documents. 38 Ibid. See No. 4, Appendix IV. 39 A. Masini, Bologna Perlustrata, Bologna (Per LErede di Vittorio Benacci) 1666, 636.

129

Tintoretto workshop was gained and maintained based on his knowledge of anatomy and therefore his contribution to the bottega and its interests.40

While they may have been introduced through Tiberio Fialetti, the working relationship between Odoardo and Giulio Casseri did not begin until 1614 1616. Before the Tabulae anatomicae (and before using Fialetti as the artist to illustrate his works) Casseri produced two earlier books: the first entitled De vocis auditusque, published in Venice in 1607, and the second on the sensory organs (with crude illustrations) entitled Nova anatomia continens accuratam organorum sensilium, tam humanorum, quam animalium brutorum.41 This work is less significant and less well-known that the Tabulae anatomicae and contains information on comparative anatomy of the sensory organs. The inclusion of animal studies as a substitute for human dissection was commonplace in the Cinquecento, and found its origins as dating before Galen. However by the early Seicento, such an examination was becoming less acceptable due to its inaccuracy in the face of growing objective data about the human body and its structure. Therefore the Tabulae anatomicae provides a much more important contribution to advancing the field of anatomy and self-knowledge (as opposed to knowledge of self inferred through other animals as seen in the earlier books).

40

It was Ludovico Dolce who best described the need for artists to have good anatomical knowledge, and stated that: [the artist should] follow the Roman practice of clothing the bones in flesh and the flesh with draperies, in his 1557 Dialogo della pittura. See M.W. Roskill, Dolces Aretino and Venetian Art Theory of the Cinquecento, New York 1968, 15 (translation) and 29ff (original Italian). 41 G. Casseri, De vocis auditusque organis historia anatomica singulari fide methodo ac industria concinnata tractatibus duobus explicata ac varijs iconibus aere excusis illustrata, Venettis (Victorius Baldinus) 1607. The earlier edition of De Quinque Sensibus Liber, Organorum Fabricam Variis Iconibus Fideliter Aere Incisis Illustratam, Nec non Actionem e Usum, Venetiis (Nicolaum Misserinum) 1609, is a much rarer work than the Frankfurt edition and therefore was not able to be consulted for this study. G. Casseri, Nova anatomia continens accuratam organorum sensilium, tam humanorum quam animalium brutorum, second edition, Frankfort 1622. [WEL, 1334/D]

130

4.1. The History of Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae The exact date marking the beginning of work on the Tabulae anatomicae is unknown, though in addition dissections at the University of Padua, it appears that Casseri was undertaking his own private dissections as early as 1586, which offered him a wealth of information and detail beyond the scope of a public anatomy, suggesting he was planning the work over the course of many years.42 It is likely though, that drawings for the work would have been begun approximately two years before they were finished in 1616, which allots time for collaboration between Casseri and Fialetti, as well as revision and their engraving in copperplate by Valegio.43 77 plates were originally commissioned by Casseri, consisting of detailed musculature and skeletons, all of which surpassed the Vesalian muscle men in originality and vigour. Assuming Fialettis early involvement with anatomy through his brother Tiberio, and subsequent work on the 1604 edition of Vesalius, the degree of accuracy and detail with which he imbues the images should not be surprising. In addition to the detail in the figures themselves, he also includes landscapes in the background, like the Vesalian artist, though proportionally they take up less than a quarter of the picture plane (as opposed to half). After Fialetti completed the preliminary drawings44, they were engraved in copperplate by Valegio, though Casseri died before he could see them realised in his own Tabulae anatomicae.45 Additionally,

42 43

G. Sterzi, Giulio Casseri: Anatomico e Chirurgo (c. 1552 1616), 18, ser. 3, 234. The Vesalius/Valesius anagram appears to be intentional on the part of Valesius, whose name is often give as Valesio, Valegio or Valegi. From a Venetian printing family, it is possible that the inscription is an intentional parallel of the name of the famous anatomist which he may have seen as particularly appropriate in this instance. 44 Unlike his other printed works, Fialettis involvement with an anatomical atlas is not documented in early biographies. 45 Unfortunately, no original drawings for Casseri have survived. The dating of the plates approximately 24 years before their completion is based not only on Fialettis dated oeuvre and the other projects on which

131

Fialetti and Valesius were involved in the plates for the De Formato Foetu, a work on the growth of the foetus, which originally stood separately from the Tabulae anatomicae.

The history of this book then takes an interesting turn. After Casseris death, his position was taken up by Adriaan van den Spieghel, a Flemish anatomist who had been his student. Spieghel had planned an anatomical treatise of his own, and at the time of his death in 1625 had prepared the text, but lacked images.46 Spieghels student Daniel Bucretius, who was also the executor of his will, obtained the rights to the use of the original copperplates for the Tabulae anatomicae from Casseris grandson which he then combined with Spieghels text.47 Bucretius felt, however, that the 77 original illustrations were not sufficient to illustrate his masters work, and commissioned an additional 20 plates from Fialetti (also engraved by Valegio) before the 1627 publication of De humani corporis fabrica libri decem.48 The plates for Casseris De formato foetu were obtained by Liberalis Crema, who published the work (also containing Spieghels text) in Padua in

he was concurrently working, but also on the accounts of Francesco Calzolari, who produced a similar size book on natural history (with fewer plates) in Verona in 1622. See C. Fahy, Printing a Book at Verona in 1622, Paris 1993. 46 B.A. Rifkin, M.J. Ackerman and J. Folkenberg, Human Anatomy: Depicting the Body from the Renaissance to Today, London 2006, 114. This is also confirmed in S. Hollands notes, from Dr Alexander Monros lecture on the history of anatomy: ... but dying young [Casseri] it was never published, he tells us he had prepared figures for it, which are what we have in the Anatome that goes under Spiegeliuss name... No we have a large Book of his Anatomy which he is said to be the author of, and goes under his name, the History where is, that Spiegelius when Dying Having left his paper to the care of Daniel Bocretius [sic] his Scholar, with directions for him to publish them. S. Holland, Dr Alexander Monros History of Anatomy, folio, 1739, 63-64. [WEL, MS.MSL/82B/1] 47 Ibid. 48 It must be noted that the number of plates is contested. The original Tabulae anatomicae contained 77 plates, (and for the 1645 edition De formato foetu comprised 10). When Bucretius added 20 new images, this should amount to 97. However, in the 1627 edition the total number of plates is given as 88, and in the 1645 edition the title page lists the number as 108, begging the question of which of the plates was not original, or rather if perhaps Bucretius commissioned 21 new images instead of 20. The 1627 edition reads: Tabulis XCIIX oeri incisis elegantissimis, nec ante hac visis exornati. A. Spieghel, Dr humani corporis fabrica libri decem, Venetiis (Euangelistam Deuchinum) 1627. [BNM, 097.D.012]

132

1627.49 In addition to these original editions, a number of pirated copies appeared shortly after the 1627 publication date, including the most famous of these, the small 1632 Frankfurt edition by Merian. Two later editions, dated 1656 and 1707, appeared in German, both originating in Frankfurt.50 In addition to its success on the continent, the plates were crudely copied by John Browne for his 1705 Myographia Nova: or a Graphical Description of All the Muscles in the Humane Body, As they arise in Dissection. Distributed into Six Lectures, published in London.51

4.2. The Form of the Tabulae Anatomicae Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae is of course directly influenced by that of Vesalius, including the organisation of the text.52 Of the illustrations, only the skeletons are taken directly from the Fabrica. Like many contemporary and later anatomical treatises, the natural progression of knowledge was demonstrated through evolving and increasingly complex plates of muscles. The skeletons of Vesalius were often used but very occasionally improved upon. This is due in part to their high degree of accuracy and their emotive beauty. The muscles, on the other hand, while classically inspired and correct,
49

B.A. Rifkin, M.J. Ackerman and J. Folkenberg, Human Anatomy: Depicting the Body from the Renaissance to Today, 114. 50 I. Casseri, Anatomische Tafeln, Franckfurt (T.M. Gtze) 1656. Copies of this edition survive in the following libraries: Linkoping Stadsbibliotek, Sweden; Countway Library, Harvard University Medical School, MA, USA; Chandler Medical Centre, University of Kentucky, KY, USA; School of Medicine Library, Washington University, MO, USA; University of Oklahoma, Norman OK, USA; UC Berkley, CA, USA; and the Bancroft Library, University of California, CA, USA. I. Casseri, Anatomische Tafeln, zusamt derselben hchstnhtigen Erklrung, Francfurt (G.H. Oehrling) 1707. As with the 1656 edition, a number of copies of the 1707 edition survive in the following libraries: Yale University Library, CT, USA; Yale University Medical Library, CT, USA; Thomas Jefferson University Library, PA, USA; National Library of Medicine, Bethesda MD, USA; Cleveland Health Science Library, OH, USA; and UCLA Library, Los Angeles CA, USA. In respect to both editions, I have been as yet unable to consult either because of their relative geographical inaccessibility. 51 J. Browne, Myographia Nova: or a Graphical Description of All the Muscles in the Humane Body, As they arise in Dissection. Distributed into Six Lectures, London (Thomas Shelmerdine) 1705. [WEL, 15696/C] 52 The anatomy is divided into ten books as listed in No. 5, Appendix IV.

133

were seen as static and stagnant by the Seicento. It is this sense of animation and vivacity for which Fialetti is praised by both Malvasia in the Felsina Pittrice and Gigli in La Pittura Trionfante. Of his bodies, Malvasia copies Boschinis La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco when he writes that they are well drawn, with exquisite form, full of substance and full of life, and that his bodies approach the living. 53 Gigli continues with similar praise, even becoming more overt in his descriptions of Fialettis abilities in relation to anatomy.
54

Fialettis prowess in these accounts, alongside both good colorito and

disegno is equated with anatomy. In to the eighteenth century, one finds similar descriptions, including that from Giovanni Gori Gandellini, which regards his anatomy more as curiosity than great art. 55

Even as late as the nineteenth century, in William Andersons address to the Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas Hospital, Fialetti is mentioned in the context of good and artistic anatomy: We have no Lionardo [sic] de Vinci, Calcar, Fialetti, or Berrettini, but the modern draughtsman makes up in comprehension of the needs of science all that he lacks in artistic genius.56

The genius of Casseri, the artistic abilities of Fialetti (and to a lesser degree Valesius), and the facility and willingness of printer Evangelista Deuchino57 combined to create this
53 54

C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice. Vite de Pittori Bolognesi, 314. G.C. Gigli, La Pittura Trionfante, 19. [BAV, Cicognara, IV.M.107, (int. 17)] See No. 6, Appendix IV. This particular description mostrando di valor genio immortale is interesting and echoes the inscription on Vesalius Skeletal Yorrick, stating that genius is immortal 55 G. Gori Gandellini, Notizie Istoriche deglIntagliatori, tomo II, Siena (Vincenso Pazzini Carli e Figli) 1771, 23. [BL, Rare Books, 277.e.6] Most of this description of Fialettis anatomy suggests that the author is familiar with Malvasias account. See No. 7, Appendix IV. 56 W. Anderson, An Outline of the History of Art in Its Relation to Medical Science, introductory address delivered at the Medical and Physical Society of St Thomas Hospital, 1885, St Thomass Hospital Reports 15, 1886, 170; as cited in L. Daston and P. Galison, The Image of Objectivity, Representations 40, Special Issue: Seeing Science, 1992, 100.

134

unique work. The title page of the 1627 edition is skilfully executed, both iconographically and technically, and was reproduced with less success in the 1632 edition [Fig. 4.3]. Here, we see Fialetti breaking away from the Vesalian model and demonstrating his own creative capabilities. Instead of a crowded dissection theatre, the viewer is shown an architectural framework, surmounted by the personified virtues of Diligence (DILIGENTIA), Anatomy (ANATOMIA), and Genius (INGENIVM). Diligence holds a scalpel in her left hand and a bifurcated hook (potentially the surgical retractor which also appears on the table of anatomical instruments) in her right, and turns to face Anatomy. Anatomy sits on an architectural throne, behind which is a curtain, the form of which is almost reminiscent of the Virgin Mary seated upon the throne of Wisdom as seen in Quattrocento and Cinquecento painting, as well as classically inspired depictions of Virtues. Anatomy holds a mirror upon her right knee, and a skull in the left, quite literally reflecting humanity and mortality. The far right figure of Genius sits apart from the other two and does not interact in the same way. She holds a staff with a sun-disc at the top, and gestures to it, suggesting that the light and brilliance of genius is an integral part of the study of anatomy. The architectural frame itself is very detailed and the rounded space (flanked by the two anatomical figures) recalls the space as created in the Vesalian title page of 1543. Two central putti hold the banner with the title page inscription above a table containing INSTRVMENTA ANATOMICA, including a bone saw, scalpel, surgical retractor, scissors, and a hammer and chisel. The Skeletal Gravedigger on the left of the image is taken directly from Vesalius figure of the same name, though here he has been reversed (potentially a result

57

See Chapter III, section 4.1 for information on Evangelista Deuchino and his role in the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori.

135

of copying) and compacted to form a column and his right hand turned in to a more natural position (as opposed to anatomical position with the palm facing outward as in the original). Fialetti has elongated the figure, departing from the Vesalian reliance on classical proportions, in order to create a more beautiful and sinuous body. He has also increased the size of the pelvis, and decreased the breadth of the ribcage, creating a skeleton more in keeping with female proportions, rather than the strict triangle as one expects to see in male figures.58 The corch is much the same, taken from Prima, the first plate of muscles, it has been reversed, the arms pushed closer in to the sides of the body and the length increased, whilst still retaining the accuracy and emotive quality to the face as the original. Of copies after the originals, these are some of the most faithful. When one considers other uses of the muscle men and skeletons, in particular Valverde de Amuscos treatise of 1560, Anatomia del corpo humano, it becomes clear that the skill required to complete even a copy of these works is extraordinary. Underneath the skeleton, is a tondo of a monkey holding an apple, under which is engraved: Franc. Valesius Sculpsit; whilst underneath the corch is a boar, bearing the inscription: Odoardus Fialettij delineauit. The date and year are also indicated as VENETIIS / MDCXXVII, on the left and right respectively.

4.3. Surface Anatomy

58

Anatomically, the male skeleton differs from the female in proportion between the shoulders and ribcage and the pelvis. A man will traditionally have a much more identifiable inverted triangle shape beginning across broad shoulders and tapering past the waist, whilst a woman is more proportional between the size of her ribs and pelvis with a narrower shoulder.

136

The plates themselves begin in earnest with surface anatomy, both anterior and posterior, which is not typically seen in such treatises [Figs. 4.4 and 4.5].59 The figure is a man in contrapposto pose, who looks decidedly contemporary. He stands against a landscape complete with ruins. In the foreground is a table or tomb, upon which are engraved the eye, ear and nose so that the reader can better appreciate the skill of the artist and engraver and examine the external sensory organs, in which Casseri had a special interest. The depiction of the body is accurate and lacks any of the roughness often seen in artists trying to explore the anatomy of the nude, particularly Palma il Giovane and Tintoretto. These first two plates are also important in understanding the contributions of Fialetti and Valesius.60 Fialetti as draughtsman and Valesius as engraver have very different styles: Fialetti embraced the dynamic potential of his subjects, whilst Valesius preferred a smoother finish and more controlled scene. I believe that the original drawings would have been less controlled, and in as much, possessing a greater sense of movement and life, the curves of the body interacting with and reflecting the landscape. The landscape is also characteristic of Fialetti, the ruins reminding the viewer of his Landscape book, Vesalius and the classical tradition of anatomy.

4.4. Plates of Muscles The plates of muscles do not appear until the fourth book, and demonstrate a progressive anatomy moving from the head down the torso and toward the feet, as opposed to the standard approach of superficial to deep structures. While the first two plates depict the
59

The exceptions to this are the Adam and Eve figures from A. Vesalius, suorum de humani corporis fabrica librorum Epitome, Basel 1543. [BL, Rare Books, C.18.e.4] 60 Both of the first plates are signed by Valesius in the 1627 and 1645 editions. The first plate reads Franco Valesio and the second reads F. Valesio, both in the lower left corner of the print. A. Spieghel, De humani corporis fabrica libri decem, Venice (Evangelistam Deuchinum) 1627. [BL, Rare Books, 544.l.10]

137

anatomy of the head and neck, the third seems to be curiously out of sequence, showing the muscles of the back and upper arm in various layers [Fig. 4.6]. The figure half kneels on a rocky outcrop in the foreground, a device that Fialetti utilises in a number of these prints to show particular muscles in contraction, which would not have been possible in the more traditional representations. In addition to this posture, the seated figure upon a plinth is also used to vary the visual repertoire and better demonstrate the physiology depicted [Fig. 4.7]. One of the most unique plates is Tab. VIII, in which a man turns, his left knee on the plinth, and his torso turning in the opposite direction [Fig. 4.8]. In this way, he holds his own skin, flayed from his chest, as a cloak, its lower edges ragged, as if its been ripped from his body. The face is partially hidden from the viewer by the raised arm. The landscape is not particularly complex in this instance to better focus attention on the draped skin as hanging from the arm of the corch. The triangular movement in the skin echoes the form of the serrater muscles of the ribcage, and the long folds draw the eye down the length of the body. This is one of the more classically inspired figures, and recalls the figure of Marsyas, who was flayed by Apollo after challenging the God to a music competition.

Fialettis equation of his corchs with figures from the classical past attests to his knowledge of mythology, as well as demonstrating his debt to earlier Venetian masters most notably Titian and Palma il Giovane, who painted the figure in similar guises in the Flaying of Marsyas and Apollo and Marsyas respectively.61 Subsequent figures, notably Tab. IX, who wears his skin like a cloak across his chest, and Tab. XII and Tab. XIV, all

61

J. Neumann, Titian: The Flaying of Marsyas, London 1962. Palma il Giovane, Apollo and Marsyas, Oil on canvas, 134x195cm. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig.

138

of Lib. IV, who hold their own skin open and gesture to their own anatomy. This idea recalls the earlier concepts set out by the illustrated anatomy of Berengario da Carpi, in his 1523 Isagogae breves per lucidae ac uberrimae in Anatomiam human corporis, where the figures, holding out their skin and creating a star shape with their stance and gesture, radiate knowledge.62 The anatomy as shown here is incredibly naturalistic for the period, but the figures are anything but realistic. In this context it becomes extremely important to differentiate between naturalism and realism in the context of anatomical illustration: these figures are in fact flayed cadavers, and are far removed from the reality of the anatomy theatre. The corch holds his own skin open, acting both as a model and demonstrator, thus removing the need for an anatomist, and paralleling one of the advantages, and perhaps one of the purposes, of the book.

As with his other printed works and his painted oeuvre, Fialetti tries to act as an exponent of good disegno (or rather his disegno and visual repertoire). Many of the landscapes feature towns, lakes and hilly outcrops which recall both the 1610 Landscapes book, as well as the 1624 and 1630 editions of Tensinis La Fortificatione Guardia Difesa. Tab. XVI [Fig. 4.9] looks to be an amalgam of landscape ideas by Fialetti, including a lake to the right, and figures boating in the lower left background near a hill topped with an unusually styled church. Unlike Vesalius, the landscapes do not form a continuous narrative and do not appear to serve any iconographic function, and are there purely to

62

B. da Carpi, Isagogae breves per lucidae ac uberrimae in Anatomiam human corporis, Bologna 1523. Also utilising this particular posture was Eustachius, in his Tabulae Anatomicae Clarissimi Viri of 1564. This book, however, cannot be cited as influential as the plates were never published during the Cinquecento, and were rediscovered in the Vatican Library by the Popes physician and later published in 1714. B. Eustachii, Tabulae Anatomicae Clarissimi Viri, Venetiis 1769. [BNM, 168.D.4]

139

add depth and visual interest.63 The landscapes, detail and beauty of the prints themselves may also suggest that the works could be used and appreciated by artists (in particular the plates of surface anatomy and muscles).64 It is not only the landscapes which recall the rest of Fialettis oeuvre: the facial features and physiognomy of some of the figures, for example the heads of Tab. II, Lib. X [Fig. 4.10] appear to be intended to remind the viewer of the patron in the SS. Giovanni e Paolo painting of The miraculous payment of the boatmen of c. 1606, as well as the bearded man in the plates of heads of Il vero modo.

The recurrence of the bearded man Tab II. Lib. X, raises an interesting question: if in the SS. Giovanni e Paolo painting his identification as patron or prior65 is correct, then one must ask why Fialetti has utilised his likeness in this context. Two potential readings seem plausible: the first is a positive association with this man as patron for many of Fialettis works. A second reading is less positive: while he is used as a frequent model, he is shown here as beheaded and dissected, instead of being shown as an corch proudly anatomising himself. He stares up at the viewer through the flaps of his own skin, looking almost defeated. I read this as being representative of an antagonistic relationship between this SS. Giovanni e Paolo patron and Fialetti, thus the use of a rather dramatic visual insult.

63

For additional anatomical treatises with landscape backgrounds, please see: B. da Carpi, Isagogae breves per lucidae ac uberrimae in Anatomiam human corporis. Bologna 1523. C. Cesio, Cognitione de muscoli del corpo humano per il disegno, Romae 1697. [BL, Rare Books, 781.l.31] C. Estienne, La dissection des parties du corps humain. Paris 1546. P. da Cortona, Tabulae anatomicae. Romae 1741. [BNM, 168.D.6] T. Geminus, Compendiosa totius Anatomie delineato. Londini (Ioanni Herfordie), 1545. P. Paauw, Svccentvriatvs Anatomicvs continens Commentaria in Hippocratem, Lugduni Batavorum 1616. [BNM, 40.D.131] J. Valverde de Amusco, Anatomia del corpo humano. 1560. 64 As previously stated, it is well known that a number of artists owned copies of anatomical treatises to assist them in the accurate description of the human body, as well as using skeletons and corch casts. 65 Fra Antonio Serafina, who was responsible for the redecoration of the sacristy.

140

4.5. Books of Veins, Arteries, Nerves and Internal Organs Following the books of bones and muscles are books of veins, arteries and nerves, followed by three books of internal organs. Like his predecessors, Casseri has set out a programme of anatomy that includes small in-text illustrations of the thoracic and abdominal cavities, often in the guise of sculptural torsos (in the tradition of the Belvedere Torso which also appears in Vesalius and Il vero modo). However here he deviates by including a number of fully dissected figures in the same dynamic style as the corchs [Figs. 4.11 and 4.12]. This depiction is revolutionary, in that one only sees these small illustrations previously. This text paves the way for our more modern gross anatomy texts which rely on the observation of the internal organs in-situ for a full understanding of both anatomy and physiology (especially cooperative physiology of the heart and lungs, and the viscera).

5. The Cost of a Scientific Treatise in the Seicento A Comparison In thinking then of the cost and production of the book, no records exist concerning the commission of Fialetti or Valesius, or attesting to the cost of the paper and printing. However, other Cinquecento and Seicento accounts do exist, one for Juan Valverde de Amuscos anatomy of 1566 (a copy after the 1560 original), and later a large printed volume with 45 line engravings by Francesco Calzolari, describing the familys natural history collection, entitled Musaeum Francisci Calceolarii of 1630 in Verona.66 The book was first published in 1622, and the account book of Calzolari provides a useful comparison for Casseris work, which was published in 1627 on a similar scale. For Juan

66

C. Fahy, Printing a Book at Verona in 1622: The Account Book of Francesco Calzolari Junior edited with an Introduction, Paris 1993, 15.

141

Valverdes de Amuscos earlier anatomy (which was printed in 600 copies on high quality paper, with 42 illustrations) the costs are given as follows: Paper engravings drawings and plates printing other expenses, inc printing 96fl 474fl 132fl 86fl.67

This suggests that the largest expense was indeed for the drawings and engraving of the plates, which differs to the accounts of Calzolari, for whom the largest expense was the paper. Paper letterpress printer engravings drawings and plates printing miscellaneous other expenses (inc. authors, copying, transport and distribution) 1153.10.0 963.10.0 534.00.9 244.03.3 29.12.6

1217.085.68

While of the engravings accounts the drawings and plates are still the greatest expense, it was the paper that drove the price of production up, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total expense. From these two accounts one can then surmise that in the production of Casseris Tabulae anatomicae, the only expense was the engravings (broken into drawings by Fialetti and engravings by Valesius).69 Subsequently, Spieghels expenses would have comprised copying of his text, and Bucretius (or any financial supporters)

67 68

C. Fahy, Printing a Book at Verona in 1622, 71. C. Fahy, Printing a Book at Verona in 1622, 70. The accounts of Calzolari are given in Veronese money and total just over 4142.5.0. The equivalent Venetian currency would be approximately 890 silver ducats (conversion from Fahy). 69 This can be assumed because it was never printed as such during Casseris life.

142

would have had to only pay for paper, acquiring the plates from Casseris heirs and the production of new plates by Fialetti and Valesius, printing and distribution. Thus the cost of printing this book would have seemed subsequently lower because it was in fact divided over three different production periods. The quality of the paper used in the original editions is high70 and the binding is embossed with a leather coat of arms on front and back (which has been preserved by the British Library and re-mounted on the inside cover when the book was re-backed in 1933), which suggests that for Bucretius the largest expense in printing a book of this size would have been the paper.71 Unfortunately no accounts of the original sale price for these editions exist, and so no discussion of their availability and accessibility to the public can be undertaken, however one would expect it to be affordable to collectors (scientific book collections became more commonplace in the seventeenth century), students of anatomy and anatomists, and interested artists.72

6. Northern European Copies after De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem Casseris anatomy was one of the most influential in the Seicento and was subject to copying almost immediately after its release, potentially due in part to the desire for a more affordable version.73 The first copied edition appeared in 1632 in Frankfurt,

70 71

No watermark or countermark is visible on the title page in the British Museum. A. Spieghel, De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem, Venetiis (Euangelistam Deuchinum) 1627. [BL, Rare Books, 544.l.10] Though it may be a later binding, the crest may be helpful in future studies in an attempt to ascertain the audience purchasing large anatomical atlases. 72 For more information on scientific libraries, see: J.L. Thornton and R.I.J. Tully, Scientific Book Libraries and Collectors: A Study of Bibliography and the Book Trade in Relation to Science, London 1962, in particular pp. 50, 282-299. 73 It is worth mentioning that there are in essence two sets of official editions, those produced by Daniel Bucretius and those by Liberalis Crema (which can be distinguished by the presence of De Formato Foetu). Both men had access to the original plates.

143

published by Matthias Merian.74 This edition is an 8o size, and therefore considerably smaller than the folio size of 1627. The decrease in size accompanies a decrease in quality, both of the paper and engravings.75 Given the scope of the project, the rapid copy and distribution of a complex and comprehensive text, a skilled copyist must have been involved. The figures are reduced in size and much of the engraved detail has been omitted for the sake of space. In some cases the figures lose their delicacy (Tab. XII, Lib. IV is the worst example): the muscles have been given additional chiaroscuro which obscures the cleanliness of the original line and the musculature, and the faces have been flattened. While there are no major mistakes in the gross anatomy, the figures lack the subtle understanding of an artist versed in the subject. In a majority of cases the landscape have been replaced with shoddy foreground shrubbery which looks quickly and ineptly delineated with a heavy hand and loss of control in some of the more complex curves.

Like the rest of the plates, the frontispiece has also been altered to suit the skill of the copyist (who remains unnamed throughout the text). The basic construction is the same: Diligence, Anatomy and Genius preside over the figures of a skeleton and an corch, whilst a table of instruments sits ready in the foreground to be used in the progression of the text. The original attributions to Fialetti and Valesius, as well as the date and the location of the imprint have been removed. It must be noted that the skeleton and the

74

A. Spieghel, De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem, Francofurti (Matthias Meriani) 1632. [BL, Rare Books, 1482.c.34(1)] 75 The paper is very thin and lacks watermarks.

144

corch look similar to those on the frontispiece of the 1604 Venetian Vesalius, suggesting that the copyist may have known that work.76

A third edition appeared in 1645 in Amsterdam entitled Opera Omnia, as opposed to De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem.77 This edition is larger than the original, however it uses the original plates and larger margins account for the additional size of the volume.78 The mechanism of transfer of the plates from Venice to Amsterdam in the 18 years after the original imprint is unknown, but by the mid-Seicento, copies of Spieghels anatomy were distributed over much of Northern Europe. As the title suggests, this work contains several books bound together, including Spieghels De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem and De Formato Foetu, Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae, Gaspar Asellis De Actibus, sive Acetis Venis quarto vasorum mesaraicorum genere and William Harveys De motu cordis et sanguinis in animalibus (the last two of which are in fact dissertations under Iohannes Antonidae van der Linden, Med. Prof). The Anatomische Tafeln appeared in three editions from Frankfurt, two from 1656 and one from 1707.79 Both Italian and Northern European anatomists were influenced by Fialettis plates (or copies thereof) from Casseris anatomy, and one can see his influence stretch as far as England in the eighteenth century.

76

I do not think it likely that either Fialetti or Valesius worked on this 1632 edition, given the date, the location of imprint and the quality. 77 A. Spieghel, Opera quae extant omnia, Amsterdami (Iohannem Blaev) 1645. [BL, Rare Books, 789.i.21] A. Spieghel, Opera quae extant omnia, Amsterdami (Iohannem Blaev) 1645. [WEL, F.363] 78 In comparing the British Library copies of 1627 and 1645 side by side, I can find no variation in the size or execution of the plates. Even the signature of Valesius on the first two plates (Tab. I and Tab. II, both Lib. I) is still present. It must be noted, however that there do not appear to be watermarks in the 1645 copy, despite the high quality of paper and imprint. 79 Please refer to note 56 from this chapter for a list of existing copies of these editions.

145

6.1. English Copies John Browne copied many of Fialettis plates for his 1705 Myographia Nova: or a Graphical Description of All the Muscles in the Humane Body, As they arise in Dissection.80 The work contains descriptions of the actions of the muscles in the illustrations and borrows images and ideas from many earlier anatomical treatises, including Berengario da Carpi (from whom he has taken the active posture of a man with arms and legs extended) and from Casseris Tabulae anatomicae. In particular, the illustration of the muscles of the neck, given by Browne on page 52f, is copied from Tab. II, Lib. IV of the original 1627 work. Additionally, the figures, as they stand dissected on their plinths share many similarities with Fialettis plates for Casseri: they hold open their own skin, are only partially flayed, and are occasionally draped in their own skin. The dissections of the muscles of the forearms and hands are particularly dependent on the images in Spieghels text. The scope of Brownes work is less comprehensive than that of Spieghel, and only covers the muscles of the body (hence the title of the book). Like Alexander Browne,81 who copied parts of Il vero modo for his own treatise, John Browne selectively picks concepts and illustrations to support his work. This is a very similar progression to that which occurred with Vesalius: subsequent generations changed and updated a number of illustrations with new and increasingly accurate scholarship, but looked to the past to retain those revolutionary ideas and beautiful images, creating a legacy for both anatomist and his artist. In the case of Vesalius, the skeletons were passed down in anatomical texts over several hundred years, while for Casseris Tabulae
80

J. Browne, Myographia Nova: or a Graphical Description of All the Muscles of the Humane Body, As they arise in Dissection. Distributed into Six Lectures. Reprint of the 1698 edition, London (sold by Thomas Shelmerdine, at the Rose-Treet in Little-Britain) 1705. [WEL, 15696/C] The original price of this volume is listed at 10s. 81 Alexander Browne is of no known relation to John Browne.

146

anatomicae it would be, in particular, the muscles of the neck and the construction and function of the larynx.82

7. The Uses of the De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem In addition to a favourable printed reception as demonstrated by the number of copies of all official editions of 1627 and 1645 which still exist, as well as by the number of pirated editions and copies after the work of 1632, 1656, 1698, 1705 and 1707, it is necessary to examine the reception of the book in the context for which Casseri and Spieghel intended it: the anatomy lesson. Students of anatomy and medicine would have had three primary uses for this work: first, it acted as a supplement to dissection or as a replacement during periods when the practice was banned, and in this context the images were most important. Secondly, it acted as a supplement to the anatomy lecture, in which case the text would have taken precedence.83 Finally, and somewhat later, it can be seen in the context of lectures given on the history and development of anatomy. Manuscript examples of these uses are invaluable to understanding the role of the anatomical treatise for a student. Though often not directly related to Casseri, the examples given here relate to similarly illustrated texts, many of which are less well known than the De Humani Corporis Libri Decem, and therefore I feel it is safe to assume a similar pattern of use. The first examples relate to copies of anatomical drawings done by students, in which case the illustrations are vital for the understanding of structure. Copies of plates after
82

Casseri was well known for his research on the voice and the structure of the neck, and thus it is logical that his illustrations of those structures provided a new contribution to the field. Tab. II, Lib. IV is the illustration of those ideas first explored in De vocis auditusque of 1607 and is one of the most recognisable and familiar images from the text. It is noteworthy that ideas from Fialettis drawing book can also be easily recognised here, thus creating a legacy for the artist as well. 83 An example of a students lecture notes taken from an unnamed anatomists lecture, see: Anon., Breve descrittione di tutte le parti del corpo humano, 15 ll. folio, unbound, mid-seventeenth century. [WEL, MS.148]

147

Andreas Vesalius from the Fabrica, from the early seventeenth century is a set of pen and black ink drawings from the early seventeenth century.84 The copies of the plates are faithful, and include the labels and legend for the various structures, though the student takes some liberties with the intricacies of the muscles and uses a bit of anatomical shorthand (reminiscent of Tintoretto). The second set is of a similar form, also from the early seventeenth century and constitutes Five Anatomical Pen Drawings after Valverde de Amuscos Anatomia del Cuerpo Humano.85 Both of these suggest that copying figures with legends acted as a study aid for students of anatomy, and in this context, the illustrations and detail provided by the artist are imperative assisting the student in understanding the body. We can infer then that Fialettis plates for Casseri would have acted as similar aids, and were probably copied by students as aids to memory. A final set of notes come from a lecture on the history of anatomy taken from Alexander Monros History of Anatomy from 1739, from Edinburgh by S. Holland.86 This set comprises a very carefully constructed series of lectures given by Dr Monro, during which he addresses historical anatomists, their contributions, works, and faults in an almost historiographic context, from Hippocrates to contemporary scholars. Chapter 8 deals with Fabricius, Casseri, and Spieghel, alongside Johannes Riolanus, Casper Bartholine, Casper Hoffmanus, Andreas Libavius, Peter Paaw [sic] and Casper Asellius. Of the work, the

84

Anon., Copies of plates after Andreas Vesalius from the Fabrica, atlas folio and loose sheets, 45x29.5cm, black pen and ink, early seventeenth century. [WEL, MS.791] This work is mislabelled as being a copy after Vesalius, when it is in fact a copy after Geminus (1545), suggesting that it was done in England. The plate of the Vndecima Mvscvlorvm Tabvla is a direct copy with the trapezius muscle dissected and presented in the lower right corner of the page. Also figure Decimatertia rests upon a small block, which lacks the missing corner characteristic of Vesalius, again attesting to the fact that the student was looking at a later copy. 85 Anon., Five anatomical pen drawings after Valverde de Amuscos Anatomia del Cuerpo Humano, loose sheets, pen and ink, early seventeenth century. [WEL, MS.785] 86 S. Holland, Mr Alexander Monros History of Anatomy Taken in the Year 1739: In his College att [sic] Edinburgh Novembr the 20th, folio, 1739. [WEL, MS.MSL/82B/1]

148

student writes that Monro stated Bucretius did a great disservice to the names of Casseri and Spieghel by not being up for the task of compiling the plates and texts. He does however commend Casseris contribution to anatomy both through his Tabulae anatomicae and De vocis auditusque.87 The history of anatomy lecture is an interesting one in that one can see a different use of Casseri and Spieghels anatomy and can glean an idea of eighteenth century perceptions of his work. While he made mistakes, the plates arent criticised as being poorly delineated or inept, suggesting that over 100 years after its initial publication, Casseris Tabulae anatomicae was still respected for its contribution to the field. Fialetti and Valesius are not named in the students notes, but in that regard, neither is van Calcar discussed in the chapter on Vesalius. The use of an artist and his role were seen as integral by this period, and in a history of anatomy lecture it would have seemed overly descriptive and out of place to include a discussion on artists, as they were seen as only carrying out the wishes of the anatomist in their prints, as opposed to the reality of being actively involved in the creative process (as is the case with Fialetti).

8. Conclusion The relationship between artists and anatomists is a lengthy and complex one: from early texts which lacked illustration, to the more familiar Cinquecento anatomies which relied on an artist for depiction of the body in both accurate and beautiful ways, one gains a sense of ever forward movement in the discipline. By the Cinquecento the concept of a lesser-known artist from a masters studio working on large scale anatomical projects had

87

S. Holland, Mr Alexander Monros History of Anatomy, [WEL, MS.MSL/82B/1], 63. See No. 8, Appendix IV.

149

found its precedent in Jan Stephen van Calcar, who worked under Titian and who illustrated Vesalius famous 1543 De humani corporis fabrica libri septem. The foray into anatomical illustration would have been a natural one for Odoardo Fialetti. From his early exposure to anatomy from his brother Tiberio as mentioned by Malvasia, he would have been possessed of a more intuitive understanding of the body. This early mastery of the naturalistic depiction of the body may have secured his place in the workshop of Tintoretto during the last years of the artists life. From these early beginnings, Fialetti may have ventured into pure anatomical illustration as early as the first years of the Seicento for the Venetian Vesalius, which was swiftly followed by his drawing book, Il vero modo, which can be viewed as a treatise of surface anatomy and physiognomy. These two works suggest Fialettis interest in creating naturalistic illustrations for use by both artists and anatomists, and thus inadvertently making the field more accessible for both and creating an inherent interdisciplinarity in his own oeuvre. In this way he was also advancing the increasingly popular ideals of an academic education of artists, which emphasised the need for anatomy through the writings of Lodovico Dolce, Taddeo Zuccaro and Lomazzo. Through a recommendation by his brother Tiberio, or through his reputation as a talented draughtsman, Fialetti was introduced to Casseri, for whom he produced 77 plates, a frontispiece, and 20 additional plates for Bucretius, as well as those for De Formato Foetu. These plates demonstrate one of the most complex artistic and anatomical programmes of the Seicento, which was not rivalled until the end of the Settecento. The popularity of this book, as attested to by the number of copies which still exist, as well as the number of copies, pirated editions, and later treatises based on the De Humani Corporis Libri Decem, acts to secure Fialettis place in the history of anatomical

150

illustration. Historiographically in the context of medicine, the place of this work is as one of the successors to Vesalius. Its place in the history of art cannot be overlooked either, as Fialetti, who came from a Bolognese tradition of naturalistic depiction under Cremonini, brought more accessible and increasingly accurate illustrations to a wide audience through the 1604 Vesalius, the 1608 Il vero modo and the 1627 De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Decem. His influence would not have stopped, though with his own editions, but rather was carried on through copies produced in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London, as well as through students of anatomy and art who copied his drawings in order to further their own studies. Thus, it is safe to say that through Fialettis own promotion of copying materials as a tool to learning, he created for himself a uniquely interdisciplinary niche in the histories of art and medicine, one which is best expressed by the inscription on the tomb of the skeletal Hamlet which soliloquises in the 1604 (and original 1543) Vesalius: Vivitur Ingenio, caetera mortis erunt genius lives on, all else is mortal.88

88

A. Vesalius, De humani corporis fabrica, Venetiis (Anton: et Iacobum de Franciscis) 1604, 124.

151

Chapter V: Fialetti and his Impact on the Early Modern Aesthetic in England

1. Introduction Though it is thought that Fialetti never left Italy, his ideas concerning good disegno played an important part in the formation of a collective the taste for Italian art in England. Printed material, and a number of paintings, brought back to Britain by Sir Henry Wotton, Thomas Howard the Earl of Arundel, his wife Aletheia Talbot, Edward Norgate, and William Cecil (Baron Roos), provided examples of the ideas laid out in earlier Italian treatises such as Lomazzos Trattato and demonstrated the importance of the new Italian sense of disegno for enthusiast, gentleman scholar and artist alike. In addition to the aristocratic contacts who would later form the base of his foreign patronage, a number of artists also passed through the English circle in Venice and probably had contact with Fialetti and his works, including Edward Norgate, Inigo Jones and Sir Anthony van Dyck, taking with them the newly emphasised Venetian ideals of composition, and its importance in artistic formation.1 From these associations, Fialettis work formed an integral part in the development of the drawing book in England, and was first copied by Alexander Browne in the latter half of the seventeenth century in his The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching.2 This chapter will first discuss the relationships between Fialetti and this English circle, and his contact with English artists passing through the city. Fialettis later reception through the breadth of his works in England, both painted and printed, offers an important insight into his impact on both the artistic climate of seventeenth century, and that in subsequent centuries.

1 2

For a discussion of academic practice in the Seicento, see Chapter III, section 3. A. Browne, The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching. Collected out of the choicest Italian and German authors, London 1660. [BL, Rare Books, C.123.f.22]

152

2. The English Interest in Venetian Art The Stuart period and the reign of James I marked the increasing interest in Venetian art in England, and some of the recognition for this interest must be given to Sir Henry Wotton, who first travelled to Venice as ambassador in 1604.3 He is often credited with being one of the earliest English connoisseurs of Italian art, and is known to have bought pictures for both Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Buckingham during his embassies.4 From these correspondences, one can gain a sense of the burgeoning taste for wellmodelled figures, as Wotton goes on to ask if he [the Duke] feels that the Italians can make fruits as well as Flemings, which is the common glory of their pencils.5 Wotton acts not only as a connoisseur himself, but sends an agent (who has been identified provisionally by Pearsall Smith as the Flemish art dealer Daniel Nys) who is also a painter to make a search in the best towns through Italy, for some principal pieces, which I hope may produce somewhat for your Lordships contentment and service.6 This letter is dated during Wottons second embassy in Venice, however the insatiable interest in collecting Venetian art dates back to the early years of the seventeenth century. By the 1610s, many paintings had been acquired (either by commission, or purchased

3 4

L.P. Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. I, London 1907, 46. L.P. Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. I, 60. There are many examples of surviving correspondence concerning the acquisition of paintings for Buckingham, though one of the most significant (as it also concerns Baron Roos), is that from Wotton, dated December 2/12 1622, sent from Venice in which he describes paintings by Titian and Palma. See No. 1, Appendix V. L.P. Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. II, 257. 5 L.P. Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. II, 258. 6 Ibid.

153

when collections were scattered across Europe), and were displayed in London or Westminster where they could be seen by both the court and persons of quality.7

The growing interest in travelling throughout Italy proved both a source of great inspiration for early collectors such as the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Arundel, as well as for artists in their employment (most notably Inigo Jones travelling with Arundel as a cicerone), but also proved a source of great frustration for the Anglican clergy, including Joseph Hall, who asked Quo vadis?, where are you going, in an effort to emphasise the benefits of travelling through Britain instead of being exposed to moral and religious corruption in Italy.8 However this idea of religious corruption did not, of course, dissuade English Catholic connoisseurs visiting the continent, including the Earl of Arundel and his wife Aletheia Talbot, and others such as George Gage and Peter Fitton. The interrelation of collecting, patronage, and political involvement in these circles was often inexplicably complicated, and art collecting thus had the power to take on political or religious undertones, dependent on the situation.

Both sons of James I, Henry Prince of Wales, and Charles, were keen collectors. After he appropriated his brothers collection, he did not begin to acquire his own pieces until circa 1618-19, in conjunction with the activities of the Duke of Buckingham.9 Charles I exercised his tastes as a collector, and was known to have purged pictures from his
7

T. Wilks, Art Collecting at the English Court from the Death of Henry, Prince of Wales to the Death of Anne of Denmark, Journal of the History of Collections 9, 1997, 32. Wilks points out that the sale of many Venetian collections was due in part to the continuing economic decline of the city. 8 E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, London 1998, xiv. 9 T. Wilks, Art Collecting at the English Court from the Death of Henry, Prince of Wales to the Death of Anne of Denmark, 33.

154

collection that were not to his taste, or rather did not conform to the new ideas concerning a good sense of design in pictures.10 Wotton, in his Pangyrick of King Charles extols the virtues of art of the period.11 It is of note that his greatest praise goes to the Venetians: while figures breathe in Raphaels paintings, they speak in those of Titian and move in those of Tintoretto. These ideals and tastes will prove particularly important in later years, as Sir Henry Wotton bequeathed four portraits of the Dukes of Venice and a table of the Venetian College, where Ambassadors had their audience... which containeth a draught in little, well resembling the famous Duke Leonardo Donato,12 in a time which needed a wise and constant man13 by Odoardo Fialetti to the King in 1637, and they remained in his collection until the dispersal of the goods of Charles I in the Commonwealth Sale.14

10

For an example concerning the work of Hendrik Goltzius, see: T. Wilks, Art Collecting at the English Court from the Death of Henry, Prince of Wales to the Death of Anne of Denmark, 34. It should be noted, however, that this was not the case with the sculpture collection of Charles I, which he saw as a necessary and befitting his office. See D. Howarth Charles I, Sculpture and Sculptors, in A. MacGregor, ed., The Late Kings Goods: Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charles I in the Light of Commonwealth Sale Inventories, London and Oxford 1989, 73-113. 11 No. 2, Appendix V. H. Wotton, A Pangyrick of King Charles, London (Printed for Richard Marriot) 1649, 103-107. [Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery] 12 Though Donato and Don are the same surname in the Venetian dialect, this study will use the traditional titles attributed to the paintings by the Royal Collection, maintaining the difference in spelling between Leonardo Donato and Nicol Don. 13 Wotton wrote his Will and Testament on 1 October 1637, and he identifies the paintings by Fialetti which he bequeaths to the King. No. 3, Appendix V. L.P. Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. I, 215-219. Another interesting bequest in his will was that of his Italian books: To the above named Dr Bargrave, Dead of Canterbury, I leave all my Italian Books not disposed in this will. Dr Bargrave is the uncle of John Bargrave, who owned a copy of De gli habiti religioni of 1626 (as discussed in Chapter III), though whether he acquired it from his own travels or from the bequest of Wottons books to his uncle, is uncertain. 14 These four paintings, Doge Leonardo Donato (alternatively identified as Doge Giovanni Bembo), Doge Nicol Don, Doge Marino Grimani and Doge Antonio Priuli are still part of the Royal Collection, and are on permanent display in the Kings Drawing Room in Kensington Palace. The fifth painting, Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton is in storage in Hampton Court Palace. The Commonwealth Sale Records list goods sold from 1649 to 1652, and provide relatively complete information regarding the dispersal of pictures and the prices for which they sold (and to whom). At least one of the paintings of Doges was sold on the 20th of October 1650 to Mr Bass, and the Senate house of Venice sold to Mrs Delamarr on the 28th of June 1650, and both are listed as having come from Hampton Court Palace. 283. The Duke of Venice, by Tyntarrett / Sold Mr Bass ye 20th Oct. 1650 for 25 and 285. The Senate house of Venice / Sold Mrs Delamarr ye 28th June 1650 for 10. MSS. Harley 4898, An

155

3. Sir Henry Wotton and the Four Portraits of Doges Sir Henry Wotton is the first link in a chain of English contacts made by Fialetti. Though we have no direct record of the date of their first meeting, we can assume it took place relatively early in the seventeenth century, first because of the dates concerning Wottons first embassy and the origins of his collecting, especially when taken in conjunction with the Doges painted by Fialetti (in particular Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton) and the dates in which he (Fialetti) was enrolled in the Fraglia dei Pittori.15 There also exists a letter from Wotton to Vincenzo Gonzaga of 1606 in which he mentions Fialetti, suggesting that he already knew the artist by this point.16 His second and third embassies take place from 1616 1619 and 1621 1623 respectively, and we must note that Wotton commissioned Fialetti to paint these figures to commemorate the reigning Doges from each embassy.17 Wotton is sometimes compared to Balthazar Gerbier, in that Wotton was an ambassador first, with a
Inventory of the Household Goods, Jewells, Plates, & c. Belonging to the Late King, pp. 308-309, BL [Manuscripts, Harley 4898]. Interestingly the handwritten card catalogue for the Royal Collection does not list this portrait of a Duke of Venice by Tintoretto, but rather states that: 5 Doges by Tintoret sold by Commonwealth (956) sold to Mr. Bass and others 19 December 1651, one sold for 5 to Mr Waggstaffe 16 July 1650. The entry for the Senate house of Venice is the same as transcribed above, however the sale number is given as 958 instead of the correct 285. There is an additional entry in the Commonwealth Sales that may relate to the Royal Collections information, stating that on 16 July 1650, Margarett Waggstafe paid 51 for goods (which are unnamed). See MSS. Harley 4898, pp. 676. Additionally, there is an entry for Mr Edward Bass dated 19 December 1651, stating that he paid 3500,1,0 with others for goods. See MSS. Harley 4898, pp. 684. This inconsistency may be due to an incorrect earlier transcription of the sale information, as the information on the card file was transferred from the 1872 inventory catalogues (which provide identical information). 15 Leonardo Donato held the office from 1606 to 1612, and thus I feel it is safe to assume that a commemorative picture of the audience given to Wotton would have been painted soon after the event. The four portraits of doges represent the figures in office during Wottons three embassies: Doge Marino Grimani (in office 1595-1605), Doge Leonardo Donato (1606-1612) OR Doge Giovanni Bembo (16151618), Doge Nicol Don (1618) and Doge Antonio Priuli (1618-1623). 16 No. 4, Appendix V. From Henry Wotton to Vincenzo I Gonzaga, 22 April 1606, Archivio Gonzaga, b. 1538, f. II, cc. 372-373, Archivio di Stato di Mantova, as transcribed in L Borean and S. Mason, eds., Figure di collezionisti a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento, Udine 2002, 114. 17 If one assumes that Wotton wanted only one image of each Doge in office during his time in Venice, the identification of the picture later labelled Leonardo Donato may be Giovanni Bembo. However, since Wotton does not give the names of the Doges depicted in the four paintings, this remains a point of contention. Visually, Leonardo Donato and Giovanni Bembo are of similar appearance. See Domenico Tintorettos portrait Doge Giovanni Bembo, Sala dello Scrutinio, Palazzo Ducale, Venice.

156

secondary interest in art in order to ingratiate himself with his patrons18 while Gerbier took the opposite route, as an artist first, then agent and finally diplomat.19 Even though his collecting and interest in art came later than some of his contemporaries, his tastes and activities were crucial in the collection of pictures to be sent to England for aristocratic patrons, and thus the formation of the Early Modern aesthetic.

The four paintings of doges conform to well-established conventions of ducal portraiture, each of which is a three-quarter length image with the figure in three-quarter view.20 Though lacking ribbons of text, they are quite obviously painted in such a way as to recall the pictures in the Sala dello Scrutinio in the Palazzo Ducale. Like many other foreign collectors in Venice, Wotton probably requested the standard Venetian images as not only being a memento of his stay, but also because he, like other English patrons, favoured the Venetian style.21 While Wottons primary focus in collecting was the acquisition of paintings for the King and the aristocracy (as per the common role of an ambassador)22, he was able to commission Fialetti to paint at least six major works.

18 19

E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, xvii. Ibid. 20 According to the Royal Collection catalogue entries of 1872 for each picture, the original size of each was 91.4x137.2cm (36x54in), but each canvas was extended to its current size of 104.1x137.2cm (41x54in) and the painting re-touched to the edges. They are collectively described as Four Doges of Venice to the Knees in Mr Jamiesons catalogue. 21 This interest in Venetian art is indicative of the so-called duality of taste, describing the seventeenth century confluence of interest in both Northern Renaissance and Italian art. Venetian art, and its inherently northern qualities would have appealed as a compromise between these two styles. See R. Lightbown, Charles I and the Tradition of European Princely Collecting, in A. MacGregor, ed., The Late Kings Goods: Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charles I in the Light of Commonwealth Sale Inventories, 55. The English were also becoming increasingly aware of ideas concerning good disegno, due in part to Haydockes translation of Lomazzos treatise on painting of 1598. For more information on Haydocke, see F. Hard, Richard Haydocke and Alexander Brown: Two Half-Forgotten Writers on the Art of Painting, PMLA 55, 1940, 727-741. 22 R. Lightbown, Charles I and the Tradition of European Princely Collecting, 56.

157

Though Wotton stated in his will they were done after the life23, it seems implausible that a painter with Fialettis lesser reputation would have been granted an audience to create studies of the no less than five Doges during their tenure.24 It may be, however, that Wotton (after his successful first meeting with Doge Leonardo Donato) was able to gain access for the artist. Set against a dark ground, the portrait of Leonardo Donato or Giovanni Bembo [Fig. 5.1] focuses on both the record of the Doges face and costume, as well as the depiction of the ideal qualities required of the Doge: serenity, severity, justice and wisdom. The naturalism of the face and the fabric as painted in the portrait of Doge Leonardo Donato is telling of Fialettis mastery of the human face, and his growing ability to surpass these standard types, as utilised in earlier commissions for Venetian churches and prints.25 Like Fialettis other paintings, the work appears generally smooth, with no obvious brushstrokes, recalling more the work of Palma il Giovane than the late Tintoretto to which he was exposed during his Venetian formation.26 However these are the most Tintorettesque works by Fialetti (that we are aware of), and this fact was noted by Wotton in a letter to the Earl of Salisbury dated 4 April 1608: ... that are sent in a ship called the Martha... There is a picture of this famous Duke [Doge Leonardo Donato by Odoardo Fialetti], done truly and naturally but roughly, alla Venetiana, and therefore to be set at some good distance from the sight.27 This description suggests that Wotton

23 24

See note 12 in this chapter for the passage of the Will relating to the bequeath of paintings to Charles I. There is another portrait of a Doge in the oeuvre of Fialetti, the etched Portrait of Marcantonio Memmo, Doge of Venice done in 1612. [BM, Italian XVIIc Mounted Roy, 1874,0808.583]. 25 The standard facial features of three or four masculine heads presented in Il vero modo et ordine were used for a large number of his paintings, including those for the Sacristy of SS. Giovanni e Paolo. They also reappear in Casseris anatomy, De humani corporis fabrica libri decem of 1627. 26 Despite these obvious stylistic differences, the paintings were still listed as being by Tintoretto as late as 1819 in the Royal Collection catalogues for Kensington and St James Palaces, as transcribed in the 1872 catalogue. 27 E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 207. This is also cited (with the information concerning the date and recipient of the letter) in L. Pearsall

158

appreciated the popular style of Tintoretto, if not professionally as an agent of the King, then personally, as he served as one of Fialettis greatest patrons. The colours themselves are dark and tenebrous, and lack the quality of the cool palette used in his Venetian paintings.28 While some of the darkness can be attributed to the quality of the resin used as varnish (see note 29), one must also remember that Fialetti would have been using similar materials for his paintings in Venetian churches, thus one would expect the ageing and discolouration to occur at a similar rate (though one must of course factor in the subtle effects of differences in relative humidity and light in the locations of these paintings after completion).29

Of the four paintings, the portrait of Doge Marino Grimani [Fig. 5.2] is stylistically uncharacteristic of Fialetti, as previously mentioned. Unlike the emphasis on the volume of the robes and the face of the Doge, this picture lacks depth, focusing more on the brocade detail of the cloth. While Fialetti does place a large emphasis on texture, as demonstrated in the variation between the furs and silks of the three other portraits, this demonstrates more an interest in the repetitive pattern. The face of Doge Marino Grimani
Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, Vol. I, 419, entry number 125. Wotton also cites his appreciation of the earlier Venetian style as propagated by Titian and Palma in his letter to the Marquis of Buckingham from 12 December 1622. L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, Vol. II, 257, entry number 381. See again No. 1, Appendix V. 28 The following information is used with the kind permission of Rupert Featherstone, senior conservator for the Royal Collection. The four paintings of Doges were surface cleaned at Kensington Palace in 1996, but were not transferred to the conservation studios for a full technical examination. From this examination, it was noted that there was flaking paint in the backgrounds of a number of the images, and canvas strips added around the perimeter of each picture. There are few areas of old damage or obvious retouching, with the exception of the addition of the identity of Doge Leonardo Donato / Doge di Venezia. The impasto has been largely flattened (thus adding to the smooth quality of the pictures) during an earlier lining process, the date of which is unknown. All four paintings are disfigured by thick, discoloured natural resin, the effects of which could not be remedied during surface cleaning. All four pictures were given a thin coat of varnish in 1996 to enhance the colour saturation. 29 For further information on the discolouration of pigments in varying levels of relative humidity, see: D. Saunders and J. Kirby, The Effect of Relative Humidity on Artists Pigments, National Gallery Technical Bulletin 25, 2004, 62-72.

159

is pointed, and neutral in expression, lacking the personified ideals of the serene ruler. These differences may indicate that this painting is not in fact by Fialetti, but potentially a contemporary Northern or Venetian painter.30

A fifth portrait of a doge by Fialetti, the Portrait of Doge Leonardo Donato was sold in Paris in 1989.31 While the size of the painting is significantly smaller than that of the Royal Collection pictures, it is not beyond possibility that it had been cut down in its history to include only the bust. If one assumes that the identification of the Doge (and of Fialetti as the artist) is correct, then this would represent a fourth doge in office during the time in which Wotton held his embassies in Venice.32 While it may have simply been another portrait of a Doge painted on commission, or a study for Fialettis own use (especially in the context of its small size when compared to his other portraits), this rather mysterious painting seems to be of a similar enough type to offer one possibility in explaining the missing fifth portrait of a doge sold in the Commonwealth Sale.

3.1. Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton

30

In my examination of the Commonwealth Sales Records, I found no entry enumerating the sale of five portraits of the Dukes of Venice by Tintoretto. As with a majority of paintings sold after the execution of Charles I, the Fialetti paintings were eventually recovered by the Royal Collection. However, the attribution of the portrait of Doge Marino Grimani remains questionable. If one assumes that five portraits of Doges were sold (in record number 283. The Duke of Venice, for 25 thus each being valued at 5), and only four returned to the collection, the fifth may have in fact been one of the original works in the set by Fialetti, and the portrait of Grimani painted by a contemporary or colleague. However, without examination of the supports for the canvas, and the supposed inscription on the back of each one, it is impossible to reach an objective conclusion regarding the authorship of each of them. The Royal Collection has no records relating to inscriptions on the backs of the canvases. 31 Portrait du Doge Leonard Donato (60.96x45.72cm, or 24x18in), sold by Ader Picard and Tajan on 14 December 1989, Lot No. 45, Old Master Paintings, Paris. Hammer price 20,000 FRF. The painting is stated to be inscribed, giving its authorship to Odoardo Fialetti. No image was available with the catalogue entry. 32 The lack of provenance information for this painting makes it impossible to ascertain the original owner, for whom the work was originally commissioned.

160

The final painting bequeathed to King Charles I by Henry Wotton was the Doge Leonardo Donato Conceding an Audience to Sir Henry Wotton [Fig. 5.3]. As with the other four pictures, it was sold in 1650, and only later returned to the Royal Collection.33 The picture is of a horizontal format with an emphasis on the scale of the room, with the figures taking up relatively little space in the composition.34 It is described in the 19th century catalogue as being: A large hall or chamber of justice at the upper end of which on a raised dais the Doge is seated in the centre. Beside him on the right is a secretary in black. On each side 3 Councillors in red and 7 in black dresses. Other officers, scribes & more in front of the picture.35

While the scene of the painting appears clear both from the title and this description, a number of anomalies present themselves during the examination. The first aspect of the work which must be noted is the incorrect depiction of the paintings beneath their drapes on the upper register of the walls. The meeting between Wotton and the Doge is said to have taken place in the Sala del Collegio in the Palazzo Ducale, which was decorated by Paolo Veronese.36 Directly behind the pediment-capped seat for the Doge is the picture of Doge Sebastiano Veniers Thanksgiving for the Battle of Lepanto, painted c. 1580.37 The main canvas is flanked on either side by grisaille figures of Saints Giustina and Sebastian on the left and right respectively. In Fialettis painting, there are curtains drawn over the central canvas, and the two grisaille figures do not appear to be related to Veroneses.

33

For a transcription of the Commonwealth Sales Record, found in MSS.Harley 4898, please refer to note 13. 34 The painting is 147.3x218.4cm and is in storage at Hampton Court Palace. 35 Taken from the catalogue entry dated 8 April 1869. 36 G. Romanelli., M. da Cort Fumei, and E. Basaglia, Le Palais des Doges de Venise, Musei Civici Veneziani, Milan 2005, 80. 37 The painting is also referred to as the Votive Picture of Doge Sebastiano Venier, and is oil on canvas, 285x565cm. See T. Pignatti and F. Pedrocco, Veronese: Catalogo completo dei dipinti, Florence 1991, 238. R. Cooke, Veronese, London 1980, 86.

161

The left figure is female, while the figure on the right is a fully clothed male saint in an ancient toga, potentially identified as St Mark.38 The inconsistencies with the decoration of the room continue along the wall (which is marked by pilasters) and the decoration of the frieze. This lack of familiarity with Veroneses decoration suggests that at this point in his career, Fialetti may have been relying on descriptions of the space, rather than a personal knowledge of it when completing the picture for Wotton.39 Other versions of this picture also ascribed to Fialetti, especially the copy owned by Donald Flynn, contain a comparatively accurate depiction of the decorative programme of the room, and thus it may be that they can be dated later than this original.40

The second feature of note in this picture is what appears to be incorrect perspective in the corners. Taken in conjunction with the lack of knowledge of the decoration of the room, this detail indicates the converse. In Fialettis picture, the cornice above the pilasters does not meet in corners, but rather the pilasters on the throne wall appear higher (and thus the cornice is offset) when compared to those on either wall. However, while he
38

The lack of attributes of either figure makes it impossible to be definitive in their identification, and thus it is based on cursory appearances and associations, and despite the shadow in the niche, one could offer an identification of St Giustina for the female figure, thus echoing Veroneses composition, and St Mark for his obvious Venetian connotations. 39 This also supports the hypothesis that he did not complete the portraits of Doges from life. 40 In particular, the painting owned by Mr Donald Flynn and Mrs Helen K. Flynn is an example of this situation. Mr Flynn states that he purchased the picture in a small antiques shop in Connecticut, and that it was in a generally good condition and measured 131x198cm (correspondence dated 9 July 1963, with Oliver Millar). The attribution to Fialetti comes from the frame, which Mr Flynn thought to be original, inscribed with Fialettis name (also from the 9 July 1963 correspondence). It was discussed in correspondence between Mr Flynn, Michael Levey and Oliver Millar, Esq. of the Lord Chamberlains Office in comparison with the Hampton Court picture, and was then sold at auction at Sothebys London in their sale of Fine Old Master Paintings on Wednesday 14 December, 1977, at 2.30pm, as Lot no. 149 for 1200.00 under the title Doge Leonardo Donato Giving Audience to a Northern Ambassador. See page 9 of the above mentioned auction catalogue for the listing, and Plate V for an illustration which matches the photograph sent to the Royal Collection in the correspondence of 1963. Similar works will be discussed at length later in this chapter. The attribution of the painting to Fialetti appears stylistically correct, as it bears a great resemblance to the painting for Sir Henry Wotton. The layout of the room and the actions of the figures are similar to the original, and only the decoration of the room, and the odd quirk of the broken cornice over the pilasters (which is shown as continuous in this work) differ.

162

did not exaggerate this peculiarity of design to its full degree, it is architecturally correct. The throne itself is flanked by four pilasters on either side, and the walls adjacent have a row of seven half-length pilasters to accommodate increased height of the canvases above them.41

Beyond the decoration and architectural design of the room, the subject of the picture itself is ambiguous. While it is undoubtedly a representation of the Doge meeting Sir Henry Wotton, its placement at the back of a large expanse of blank canvas makes it seem a secondary concern to the action of the figures in the foreground. 42 There are two benches with secretaries, each engaged in some aspect of transcribing the meeting or taking notes as there are books, paper, quill and ledger depicted on the left bench, and a book on the right.43 The figures themselves involved in these actions seem completely unaware of the audience of Sir Henry Wotton with the Doge, and are instead focused on their clerical business and on the two men at the right of the painting, one of whom is seated at the base of the dais and the other of whom is entering the room. The man

41

The similarity between the actual design in the Sale del Collegio and Fialettis picture can be best compared with the image of the throne found in: G. Romanelli., M. da Cort Fumei, and E. Basaglia, Le Palais des Doges de Venise, 81. It should also be noted, that the pilasters in the room have been replaced by a decorative fabric in Fialettis version with red on black brocade sections where there should be pilasters. 42 Most interestingly, this unusual arrangement of figures was not only influential for contemporary artists, but would be used in Charles Keans 1878 staging of The Merchant of Venice. R. Foulkes, The Staging of the Trial Scene in Irvings The Merchant of Venice, Educational Theatre Journal 28, 1976, 313. For a transcription of Keans letter, see No. 5, Appendix V. 43 I have noted that these figures are very similar to those in a figure entitled Questa la real Sala del Collegio, dove ogni giorno si riducc la mattina il Serenissimo Principe con la Signor per dare udienza a i Legati del Pontefice, ed a gli Ambasciatori di R, ed altri Principi grandi, e si trattano molte cose importanti intorno al governo dello stato Serenissimo, in Giacomo Francos Habiti dHuomini et Donne Venetiane, Venetia 1609. [BL, Rare Books, C.48.h.11], 35r. For a reproduction of this detail, see [Fig 5.4], Appendix V. At the far right, the men at the desk are labelled as Secretari. None of the other figures of note in the composition are labelled in Francos work. This particular similarity calls into the question the possible dating of the work: if one assumes Fialetti painted the audience during the same year in which it occurred, then his image pre-dates Giacomo Francos by five years, and thus could be said to have influenced the printed version.

163

entering the room is a gentleman of middle age, dressed in a black gown and wearing a crimson becho over his left shoulder, and is compositionally (if not also actively) balanced by this counterpart departing the room on the left, also attired similarly, with the crimson becho draped over his left arm.44 While his identity is unknown, the interest in his appearance as shown by the figures sitting at the left bench is plain. The most interesting figure of the composition, however, is the elderly man seated at the base of the dais on the right, attired again in the black gown and hat of a gentleman, but most curiously given red stockings. This particular feature singles him out from the rest of the composition, with this unusual use of colour.45 With the exception of the Compagnie della Calza, which no longer existed by the end of the sixteenth century, black stockings were standard Venetian dress for the patrician class, and thus this man could be identified as holding a particular office, or perhaps as a foreigner.46

3.2. Similar Seicento Depictions of the Doge Meeting an Ambassador Like the three-quarter length portraits of Doges, this type of picture seems to have been a stock type produced by a number of seventeenth century artists to commemorate visits of foreign ambassadors to Venice. Including this painting, and the one previously owned by
44

The becho (according to S.M. Newton) is: a long band of material, usually about 25 centimetres wide, worn, almost invariably, over the left shoulder... The Venetian becho appears to have served no purpose other than to convey to the rest of the world Venices opinion as to the standing of her citizens compared with those outside. S.M. Newton, The Dress of the Venetians 1495 1525, Aldershot and Brookfield, 1988, 12-16. 45 Again, according to Newton: Under the gown the togati were required to wear ordinary black hose. S.M. Newton, The Dress of the Venetians 1495 1525, 11. 46 S.M. Newton, The Dress of the Venetians 1495 1525, 95. For more information on the Compagnie della Calza, see: L. Venturi, La compagnia della Calza, Nuovo Archvio Veneto XVI and XVII, 1908 and 1909. For more information on colour in Venetian clothing, conventions, regulations and sumptuary law in the Renaissance, please see: C. Kovesi Killerby, Sumptuary Law in Italy 1200 1500, Oxford 2002. D. Owen Hughes, Sumptuary Law and Social Relations in Renaissance Italy, in J. Bossy, ed., Disputes and Settlements: La and Human Relations in the West, Cambridge 1983, 69-100. For information on Renaissance colour conventions, see: M. Barasch, Renaissance Colour Conventions: Liturgy, Humanism, Workshops, in Imago Hominis: Studies in the Language of Art, New York 1991, 172-179.

164

Mr Donald Flynn (as mentioned earlier), there are nine significant examples by Fialetti and others, including El Greco, and Pietro Malombra. These will be discussed not only for their composition, but also their attribution to Fialetti (or relationship to works by Fialetti), as well as their function as ascertained through any provenance information.47 The first of these pictures is by an unknown artist, and was housed in the Town Hall in Veere, in the Netherlands, depicting Dutch ambassador Cornelis van der Myle, who had three audiences with the Doge in 1609.48 The picture itself is slightly smaller than that by Fialetti, and less adeptly executed.49 The figures lack the delicacy found in the Fialetti painting and occupy proportionally more of the picture plane. The Sala del Collegio is also shortened, and the empty space in the centre made smaller, thus decreasing the sense of grandeur. Of particular note is the emphasis this artist has given to the paintings, and while they are not completely accurate to those painted by Veronese, they are at least attempted. Also of note is the similarity in the foreground figures to those by Fialetti. The arrangement of figures, groups of two and three around the benches in the foreground, men with bechi entering and leaving the Sala del Collegio on opposite sides, and a man seated on the right, drawing back his robe to display his stockings.50 This similarity in

47

As Michael Levey states, in the Royal Collection catalogue, this type of image is not unique to Fialetti, however he does seem to produce a large number of them, presumably for foreign ambassadors. 48 The identification of the ambassador, and dates of the audiences (16 and 21 November, and 4 December, 1609) are taken from the Royal Collection letters, from Mr J. Heringa of Emmen, the Netherlands, dated 30 January 1957. The dress of the Ambassador also differs from that of Wotton, helping to identify his country of origin through the characteristic neck ruff and hat popular in seventeenth century Holland. The correspondence concerning this picture dates from 31 December 1956 to 31 January 1957. 49 The painting measures 199x133cm, and is oil on panel, as noted by Mr J. Heringa in his letter dated 21 January 1957, Royal Collection. 50 Due to the lack of a colour photograph of this picture, I cannot ascertain whether the detailing of the bechi and calze are red, though given their relative lightness against the rest of the picture (and similarity in tone to the robes of the councillors), it seems a logical conclusion. Also of note is the fact that while the figures are arranged similarly, their attention is not directed in the same way as the figures in the Hampton Court picture. For example, while in Fialettis picture the three men at the bench on the lower right look at each other, and down towards the viewer (whose position is presumably at the other end of the Sala del Collegio), the figures in the Dutch picture look toward the ambassador and the Doge.

165

action is too great to be overlooked as a mere coincidence, and therefore given the later date of Cornelis van der Myles embassies in Venice, it may be safe to assume that this picture was produced as a copy after Fialettis original for Wotton (whose first embassy took place five years earlier). The dating of these pictures helps to explain the potential similarities one sees between the images, and potentially the relationship between the artists. If one assumes that Fialettis picture was indeed painted first, then it seems reasonable to think that the artist who painted the Dutch ambassador would have seen Fialettis original, or drawings for it.51 If Wotton took the original back to England before this version was made, it is perhaps possible that the artist saw drawings for it and copied those for his piece, suggesting that he was associated with Fialetti, as either a student or a colleague.

Other versions of this picture, including the one by El Greco also possess a similar organisation of figural groups, but none is as similar in detail (especially the figure with his stockings bared) to the Hampton Court version.52 The buyer of the El Greco picture offered his theory concerning the similarities between the figures, stating that: Perhaps the explanation is that they were both painted from the same clay models (Tintoretto initiated the use of models) or from the same sketch.53 The El Greco painting has more in common with the Dutch version than with Fialettis painting, the figures taking up
51

Because the original date of the Hampton Court picture is unknown, I cannot speculate as to when Wotton took the picture back to England. If it was indeed painted directly after the embassy, then it is likely he would have returned with it at that point. There is no indication of such a purchase in his correspondence. 52 The picture sold as a Greco is titled A Doge in Council and measures 110.5x185.42cm unframed. The attribution to El Greco was made by Prof G. Fiocco and Bernardino Pantorba in 1960. It was sold at Christies in a sale of Pictures of the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries from Various Sources, Friday April 28 1961, as Lot. 75. It was purchased by Raymond di Romare, for 480 Guineas (540.00). Correspondence between Mr di Romare, Oliver Millar and Michael Levey dates from 6-24 November 1961. 53 R. di Romare, in a letter to Oliver Millar, Esq. dated 17 November 1961, Royal Collection.

166

more space in the composition, and the similar handling of paint, described as: freer, looser, and sketchy... and the figures are more elongated.54 This suggests that perhaps the artists responsible for the Dutch picture and the El Greco picture were the same, having reused a format copied originally from Fialetti.55 The difference which arises in this picture stems from the lack of identification of both the Doge and the ambassador. The ambassador appears in a similar costume to that of the Dutch ambassador, with white cuffs and a neck ruff against a dark robe, thus suggesting he was also Dutch.56 A similarity in dress also appears between the Hampton Court painting and Doge Leonardo Donato Giving Audience to a Northern Ambassador (attributed to Fialetti), where both ambassadors are painted in black hats with turned down white collars, suggesting that the unnamed Northern ambassador may be English.

While these four pictures are very similar in composition, other pictures of similar subjects, including a third attributed to Fialetti, vary in their depiction, thus reinforcing the idea that while this type of picture may have been popular in the seventeenth century, the structure is not completely formulaic, allowing us to infer influence between these pictures. The closest format to that of Fialettis painting is The Doge and Venetian Senate giving audience to a visiting Cardinal in the Sala del Collegio in the Doges Palace,

54 55

Ibid. In addition to the handling of paint, size and treatment of the figures, there are also striking similarities in the handling of the carpet on the dais and the steps. The doorway at the right of the canvas, with its rather severely protruding pediment is almost an exact copy between the pictures. The man standing in the left mid-ground of the painting is also depicted in the same posture in both works, his left arm bent and raised. The three men in the lower right, however, are the most telling as their attitudes appear almost identical, and therefore differ from Fialettis original or the picture purchased by Mr Flynn. The attribution to El Greco seems far-fetched, given the style of the painting. 56 The ambassador may or may not be wearing a hat, the quality of the copy is poor and it makes it difficult to discern the clothing of the sitter from the dark wall behind.

167

attributed to Pietro Malombra.57 The decoration of the room is accurate, however the perspective is different and the figures appear even smaller as Malombra has made the space narrower and has exaggerated the height.

The final two versions are similar to each other, but differ from the rest of the paintings discussed in that the number of figures is drastically increased. The first is an anonymous French painting, also discussed in Royal Collection correspondence, hanging in a church in St Aubin in the Cte dOr.58 The general format of the picture is the same; however, the desks of scribes in the foreground are elongated, with four scribes standing at each. There is also a man in a scarlet toga conversing with the scribes, instead of waiting at the side of dais or exiting the room.59 The final version, The Sala del Collegio in the Doges Palace, Venice, with a Doge in Council, or giving audience, also attributed to Fialetti, was sold by Christies in 1981.60 The decoration is drastically changed, and instead of an ambassador, the Doge seems to be speaking to a cardinal, but the most interesting variation in this copy is the number and variety of figures in the foreground. There is a man holding a petition or request in the mid-ground, in the act of speaking to the Doge,

57

This picture was sold at Christies on 12 July 1985, lot no. 179, listed on p. 130 of the sale catalogue. It was unframed and was sold as The Property of a Lady, oil on canvas, measuring 185.5x223.5cm. The catalogue also mentions another picture by Malombra in the Prado depicting Doge Leonardo Donato with D. Alonso de la Cuera, and states that this picture is of a similar composition. Pietro Malombra was a student of Giuseppe Salviati, and was born in 1556 and died c. 1617. 58 The first correspondence is dated 5 September 1978, and was sent to Oliver Millar by Monsieur J.C. Garreta. He states the picture is of Laudience du Doge de Venise, and is dated 1643. Mr Garretas research suggests that the ambassador is Hughes de Lionne, who met with the Doge in January 1643, but he was uncertain as to how the painting came to be in St Aubin. 59 The photograph as provided to the Royal Collection by Mr Garreta is taken from an angle, depicting the painting on the wall of the church in St Aubin, and is in black and white, making an analysis of the colour impossible. 60 This picture was not in the files of the Royal Collection, but is of a similar type to the others discussed in this chapter. The picture was part of a sale of Fine Old Master Pictures at 11.00am on Friday 20 February 1981 as lot no. 14. It measures 92.7x111.7cm (though this is mistakenly listed as 11.7cm), and sold for 1000.00.

168

while the foreground is crowded with a number of men and women, some of whom are dressed in religious habits.61 Thus again, if one accepts the attribution of this picture to Fialetti, it is likely that it would have influenced the French picture, suggesting that (like the drawing book) his depictions of this subject (especially the earliest dated version for Sir Henry Wotton) acted as the exemplars for other artists creating works of this type for foreign ambassadors visiting Venice.

3.3. The 1611 View of Venice The final picture for Sir Henry Wotton was the large 1611 View of Venice,62 [Fig. 5.5] which hangs in College Hall of Eton College63, where Wotton was Provost from 1624 to 1639. Like the portraits of Doges, the View of Venice was a standard image type meant to recall earlier depictions of the subject, in this case the Jacopo de Barbari Map of Venice from 1500. Fialetti has of course updated the view to reflect Seicento Venice, including the area around the Piazza San Marco and the Giudecca. The view itself is based firmly in these earlier representations, and by its very nature, is less likely to be indicative of a particular artists style. F. Panzarin notes that one can classify [these paintings] as a means for ambassadors and visitors to preserve a record of their time in Italy.64 Fialetti
61

Unfortunately due to the size and quality of reproduction, it is impossible to discern the exact orders depicted, or the number of figures. 62 O. Fialetti, View of Venice, 1611, oil on linen, 193x424.2cm. This large work is signed as OPVS ODOARDVS FIALETTVS 1611 at the lower centre on a garden wall of La Giudecca [Fig. 5.6] In a piece on the painting for the Old Etonian Newsletter, H. Ryan discussed the conservation and technical information about the painting, which can be found in No. 6, Appendix V. 63 Wotton gave the View of Venice to Eton College in 1636 with the following inscription: Henricus Wottonius, post tres apud Venetos legationes ordinarias, in Etonensis Collegii beato sinu senescens, eiusque, cum suavissima inter se sociosque concordia, annos iam 12 praefectus, hanc miram urbis quasi natantis effigiem in aliquam sui memoriam iuxta socialem mensam affixit. 1636, L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, Vol. I, 210. Wottons bequest is also mentioned in F. Panzarin, Il Collezionismo Inglese a Venezia nel Seicento: Henry Wotton Letterato, Agente, Collezionista, Mecenate e il suo Rapporto con Odoardo Fialetti, Arte in Friuli, Arte a Trieste, 20, 2000, 38. 64 F. Panzarin, Il Collezionismo Inglese a Venezia nel Seicento, 39-40.

169

does however include a number of small animated figures throughout the composition, including a gondolier and his passenger under the Rialto Bridge and a man walking from the direction of San Marco towards the Rialto [Fig. 5.7]. Additionally he includes a number of boats at the Southern coast of the island [Fig. 5.8], in keeping with earlier representations of Venice as a seafaring power. It must be emphasised that this is not a direct copy after a printed map, and many of the details were invented by Fialetti to help increase the visual interest of the scene.65

3.4. Baron Roos and the Scherzi dAmore Henry Wotton can be thought of as a starting contact from which Fialetti was introduced to a number of other connoisseurs, patrons, art dealers and artists. One such introduction was to William Cecil, Baron Roos66, the grandson of Lord Burghley.67 Like Wotton, he operated outside the circle of Arundel, and thus seems to operate on the periphery of the larger English circles active in Venice at the time. Very little is known about him, save his exploits, about which Wotton writes a great deal, especially the arrest of his tutor Mr Molle in Rome.68 Baron Roos was later appointed Ambassador to Spain in 1616, and his

65

There are no examples of printed maps in Fialettis oeuvre, nor any additional views of Venice in the background of his paintings, save a depiction of the Piazzetta San Marco in the Tolentini SantAgnese painting, as discussed in Chapter II of this thesis. Francesco Valegio produced a number of printed maps and views, however, they are not copied after Fialettis View of Venice. F. Valegio, Map of Venice, c.16101614, engraving, 565x955mm. (The map also includes portraits of doges by Contarini and text by Nicol Missirini). [BM, Italian XVIIc Antiquarian, 1867,1012.694]. F. Valegio, Plan of Towns, v. II, book of engravings. [BM, 175*.a.9, 1972,U.270(1-270)]. 66 His name is also given as Baron or Lord Rosse, dependent on orthography. 67 For further information on Lord Burghley and his family, see M. Hume, The Great Lord Burghley, London 1906. Thomas Cecil, Earl of Exeter was Baron Roos grandfather. See A. Bellany, Cecil, William, sixteenth Baron Ros, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 10, Oxford 2004, 795. 68 Wotton presented Lord Roos to the Doge on 16 December 1608. His reply to Baron Roos regarding his travel to Rome was written earlier that year on 17 May 1608 and is transcribed in No. 7, Appendix V. L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. I, 429. He later wrote (on 28 November 1608) that The two barons, Rosse and St Jhons [sic] are shortly expected here [Venice]. L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. I, 445, entry number 146. See also E. Chaney, The

170

arrival in Madrid is documented in A relation of the late entertainement of the right honourable the Lord Roos of 1617, in which it states that On Synday the eight of Ianuary, his Excellency entered into Madrid.69 He was married in 1616, and after returning from his embassy in Spain, he left his wife and took up residence in Rome.70 Though short, his marriage was the occasion for which the Scherzi dAmore71 was commissioned. The date of Baron Rooss introduction to Fialetti is not documented, however it is likely to have been upon his first visit in 1608 (as his subsequent visit in 1617 occurred after the quarrel with his wife, and thus given the circumstances it seems unlikely that he would commission such a project at that late date). The subject of the Sport, or the Joke of Love, with its visual jokes and veiled eroticism would have perhaps appealed more to Baron Roos, than the quality of the illustration.72 However, it is significant that it is rather Fialettis contribution to this book which is historically more significant in terms of influence than D. Maurizio Moros poem, or the marriage of Baron Roos (which this book commemorates). His place is a very different one in the history of English collecting and commissions than that of Wotton or Arundel, in that while he seems generally unaware of the growing interest in disegno and Fialettis work in

Evolution of the Grand Tour, 205, in which the author states Mr Mole was arrested in 1608 and imprisoned for the rest of his life. Baron Roos was not held in high esteem by contemporaries, and some judged him very light brained. A. Bellany, William Cecil, 796. 69 W. Cecil, A relation of the late entertainement of the right honourable the Lord Roos his Maiesties Embassador extra-ordinaire to the Kind of Spaine, London (Printed by E. Griffin for N. Butter) 1617, A2. [BL, Rare Books, 1103.e.30]. 70 L. Pearsall Smith, The Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton, vol. II, 127. Baron Roos died shortly thereafter in Naples, having rumoured to have been poisoned. 71 For a detailed discussion of extant copies of the Scherzi dAmore, please see Chapter III, section 3.10 of this thesis. 72 As far as I am aware, Roos is not a known connoisseur of prints (though he did collect sculpture), and Fialettis commission was perhaps based on the recommendation of Sir Henry Wotton. See: S. Bracken, The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste, in E. Chaney, ed., The Evolution of English Collecting: The Reception of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Periods, New Haven and London 2003, 205-206.

171

advancing this interest in Venice through his printed material, but rather he relies on the recommendations to find a suitably stylish artist to illustrate this book.73

3.5. Daniel Nys It also appears that Wotton acted as the point of contact for Fialetti and art dealer Daniel Nys, who was the agent for the Duke of Buckingham, and while he was an important contact (and later subject of an engraved portrait by the artist in 1615)74, he was not active in the circle of Arundel.75 Nys (a French-born art dealer)76 lived on Murano where he collected pictures not only for his patrons, but also for himself.77

As an agent, he orchestrated the purchase of the Gonzaga Collection for England from 1627-32.78 He was also associated with a number of other artists, including Phillip Esengren (with whom he worked on the purchase of the Gonzaga pictures), and is often
73

This is not to say that Baron Roos was ignorant of artistic trends, but rather that his interests in collecting and patronage do not appear to be as developed as those of his contemporaries. Despite this, he is typically grouped with Catholic cosmopolitans... [who] came into their own as patrons, collectors, cultural entrepreneurs, art agents and guides. E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 205. 74 The inscription on the portrait reads: DANIEL NYS WESSALIENSIS DITIONIS CLIVENSIS / Interno fruere, O DANIEL, splendore, serenum. In populos omnes emicat unde Subar: Hinc est quof plusu leto, et clamore secundo. Virtutum merit diceris esse decus. 75 This is due in part to the rivalry between the Duke of Buckingham and Arundel as collectors. For information on the Duke of Buckinghams picture collection, see P. McEvansoneya, An Unpublished Inventory of the Hamilton Collection in the 1620s and the Duke of Buckinghams Pictures, The Burlington Magazine 134, 1992, 524-526. 76 This is sometimes given as Flemish, thus leading to confusion about his origins. 77 E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 211. Chaney also notes that with the exceptions of William Petty and Balthazar Gerbier, all of the early Stuart art dealers, or purchasers were Catholic (p. 210). In his house on Murano, Nys also held a number of pictures from the collections of Simon Zeno and del Coradino, among others. Part of this collection was later sold to Arundel. See F. Panzarin, Il Colleczionismo Inglese a Venezia nel Seicento: Henry Wotton Letterato, Agente, Collezionista, Mecenate e il suo Rapporto con Odoardo Fialetti, Arte in Friuli, Arte a Trieste, 49. Furthermore, Nys is listed as an art dealer in the Correggio inventory as discussed in Chapter II. It is uncertain whether he was involved in the sale of the Fialetti paintings to Agostino Correggio. 78 A. Lytton Sells, The Paradise of Travellers: The Italian Influence on Englishmen in the Seventeenth Century, Bury St Edmunds 1964, 74. F. Panzarin, Il Collezionismo Inglese a Venezia nel Seicento: Henry Wotton Letterato, Agente, Collezionista, Mecenate e il suo Rapporto con Odoardo Fialetti, Arte in Friuli, Arte a Trieste, 49. For more on the Gonzaga Collection, see S. Lapenta and R Morselli, Le Collezioni Gonzaga: La Quadreria nellelenco dei beni del 1626-1627, Milan 2006.

172

grouped with the other Catholic connoisseurs, including George Gage.79 Fialettis involvement with Nys may also relate to his keen interest, and supposed expertise, in Old Master Drawings,80 an area which interested many English collectors of the period.81 Though his activity was concentrated in parallel groups to that of Arundel, this proves significant in his dealings with Fialetti: though we see the artist as primarily associated with the circle of Arundel, it is important to remember that he did not restrict himself to certain religious or political circles, but rather associated himself with a number of important figures in the history of English collecting. Nys is also mentioned in connection with Fialetti in Malvasias biography of the artist, in which he discusses Nys connections with the English Court.82 And through the inventory of Abraham van der Doort, one can see clearly that Nys collections interested the King, many pieces from which can be seen to inform English artistic interests and drove collecting and patronage of the period in Venice (and which thus may have favoured a style based more in disegno than colorito, as was the case with Fialetti).83

79

M. Hochmann, Peintres et Commanditaires Venise (1540 1628), Paris and Padua 1992, 218. J. Fletcher expounds on this connection between Nys and Gage, suggesting that he is the unidentified figure in Van Dycks portrait of George Gage, connoisseur and a Roman Catholic priest of 1622 in the National Gallery, London, based on a similarity between the mans face and that given by Fialetti in his engraved portrait of Nys for G.C. Giglis La Pittura Trionfante. For her suggestion of this identification, see J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, Apollo 144, 1996, 67. 80 The interest in collecting drawings for artists (beyond their simple functionality) is repeated from an earlier author by C. Monbeig Goguel: practising artists, to whom a drawing, even the slightyest sketch might be a precious relic of a great painter of the past, to be bought at a price within their means, or an intimate souvenir of a brother artist, to be had perhaps as a gift. C. Monbeig Goguel, Les artistes florentins collectionneurs de dessins de Giorgio Vasari Emilio Santarelli, in LArtiste Collectioneur du Dessin, Vol. I, Paris 2006, 35. 81 J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 67. In this context, Fletcher lists Fialetti as a painter and dealer. Whether she has inferred his interest in Old Master drawings from the studies in his drawing and pattern books, or has based it on primary source evidence is uncertain, however such an assertion is both logical and likely valid in this context. 82 C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, I, 312. [NLS, NRR, Alex.I.3]. See No. 8, Appendix V. 83 See No. 9, Appendix V for a transcription. Windsor MS., f.5, as transcribed in O. Millar, ed., Abraham van der Doorts Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I, The Walpole Society, v. 37, Glasgow 1960, 78.

173

4. The Earl and Countess of Arundel The Earl and Countess of Arundel exemplified particular types of collectors and connoisseurs, who appreciated and purchased the works of earlier masters, and patronised contemporary artists.84 His study of antique culture and art, and excavations, combined with the time he spent living on the continent gave him a more Italianate understanding and appreciation of art than many of his contemporaries, and created in him a very high standard of taste (though these tastes have often been described as eclectic).85 Thomas Howard in particular is important for his interest in the printed medium replicating works he had seen on his travels throughout Italy and those he owned.86 Additionally, as will be explored in this chapter, his travels with English artists, most notably Inigo Jones, Edward Norgate and Sir Anthony van Dyck will prove crucial in relation to his dealings with Italian artists such as Fialetti, as the interchange of ideas which occurred between them proved to be formative in both directions. In this sense, it is his connections which are more important for Fialetti than his purchases, though historically it was his collecting (rather than patronage) which proved more fruitful. Even Peter Paul Rubens praised Arundels efforts, stating that he was one of the evangelists of our art.87 Like Wotton, Arundel acted as a hub in Venice, to which artists and visitors flocked, thus forming the predominant English circle in Venice during the first half of the Seicento.

84

For a broader look at Arundel, see: D. Howarth, Lord Arundel and his Circle, New Haven and London 1985. Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel was born in 1585 and died 1646, while Aletheia Talbot died in 1654. The two were married in 1606, and both carried out independent patronage of artists whilst in Italy. 85 M. Whinney and O. Millar, English Art 1625 1714, Oxford 1957, 2. 86 Arundels interest in prints extended not only from his own collections, but also works given to the King. One of these is described in Abraham van der Doorts inventory (Windsor MS., f.115): Item the 2d beeing engraven by one of my Lord Marshalls [Arundel] drawings of Permensius being the buriall of Christ in a woodden frame. Engraven by Vosterman. As transcribed in O. Millar, ed., Abraham van der Doorts Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I, 148. 87 D. Howarth, Lord Arundel and his Circle, New Haven and London 1985, 2.

174

Arundels tastes are laid out early in correspondence with the Earl of Exeter,88 in which he recommended the work of Palma il Giovane as a history painter, naming him the best in Venice after the death of Veronese in 1588.89 This early interest in the Venetians, in particular Palma, is crucial to understanding Arundels later tastes.90 He first arrived in the Veneto in 1613,91 and his wife Aletheia Talbot supposedly brought their sons to Italy in 1619 to give them a Catholic upbringing.92 Their frequency of visit and length of stay earned them not only a place in contemporary artistic circles, but also the esteem of the Doge: they have so well acquired the manner and tongue of this country that we consider them very Venetians.93 As also noted by Fletcher, one of the most important connections (in an artistic context) would be Gregorio Barbarigo, whom he met while giving King James Is greetings and support to the Venetian state, and whose family had

88 89

Thomas Cecil, Earl of Exeter was the grandfather of Baron Roos. Ibid. 90 Interestingly, it appears that Tintoretto is not named in this exchange, even though he lived another six years after the death of Veronese. The choice of Palma may be based on his stylistic closeness to the work of Titian, who was much admired by the English, and especially in this circle by the later Flemish artist Sir Anthony van Dyck, whose Italian Sketchbook is filled primarily with examples from Titians paintings. It is also a contrast to Wotton, who very clearly noted Tintorettos importance in late Cinquecento Venetian art, and in fact his predominant style. Thus while Wottons tastes may have been more in line with that of the Venetians, the inclinations of Arundel regarding Venetian painting leaned more toward the burgeoning academic tradition, and thus resonated more with the perceived fluidity of style found in artists like Palma and Titian. 91 The exact date of the arrival of the Earl and Countess of Arundel in the Veneto is often given as 1613 or 1614. Both made a number of journeys to Italy independently, but had made a joint pilgrimage from which they returned at the end of 1614. See D. Howarth, The Patronage and Collecting of Aletheia, Countess of Arundel 1606-1654, 126. 92 Sir Henry Wotton found Aletheia Talbots Catholicism disagreeable on a number of occasions, and their general dislike of one another seems to be well documented in his correspondence. The education of the two sons of the Earl and Countess of Arundel was completed in Italy, and both James and Frederic Henry went on to study at the University of Padua between 1620 and 1622. See J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 63. For more information on the importance of the University of Padua to foreign scholars, see A. Lytton Sells, The Paradise of Travellers, ch. VI, The University of Padua, 110-125. In particular, the author notes that by the early seventeenth century, the traditional focuses of the university on law and classical languages were proving less attractive that the scientific disciplines. 93 This is attributed to a 1622 visit to Doge Priuli by Arundels sons, as cited in J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 63.

175

purchased the contents of Titians studio from his son.94 Also of importance to the development of his tastes for Venetian art was his library, which contained works on Venice (including Sansovinos Venetia: Citt Noblissima, and Giacomo Francos Habiti dHuomini e Donne), works on or by artists (Vasaris Vite), and architectural treatises.95 These connections would prove invaluable in later years when they were joined on their travels by visiting artists including Inigo Jones, who acted as cicerone, Anthony van Dyck, and Edward Norgate.96

As a collector, he obtained not only a great number paintings,97 but also drawings and prints.98 However, Arundel was a rare visitor whose activities were not just centred
94

J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 64. See also J.A. Crowe and G.B. Cavalcaselle, Titian: his life and times, London (John Murray, Albemarle Street) 1877. [NLS]. This second connection to the work of Titian through a diplomatic acquaintance again helps the reader to understand Arundels tastes as being more resonant with the work of Palma than Tintoretto. Thus Fialettis work, which by this period was inherently dissimilar to his master, would fit in with these interests. 95 Fletcher notes copies of the following in Arundels Venetian library: the 1604 Stringa edition of Sansovinos Venetia, Goldionis 1612 Cose Maravigliose, three copies Vasaris Vite, architectural treatises by Palladio, Serlio and Scamozzi, Giacomo Francos Habiti. See J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 64. Fletcher does not list any treatises on art which Arundel may have owned, such as Lomazzo, or drawing manuals, which were known to have been used by his sons. A 20th century catalogue of the Library at Arundel Castle reveals copies of a number of the works listed from the Venetian libraries, though many are later reprints. Of the inventory given, however, a number of roughly contemporary books do appear, including several with quite clear links to Arundels Venetian sojourns and his collecting activities: Alexander Browne, Ars Pictoria: or an Academy treating of Drawing, Painting, Limning and Etching, London 1669; T. Tasso, La Gerusalemme Liberata, Padua 1628 [with which Valegio was involved, and perhaps also Fialetti]; and A. Van Dyck, Icones Principium Virorum Doctorum Pictorum Chalcographorum Statuariorum nec non Amatorum pictoriae artis numerocentum..., Antwerp c. 1640. There are also later imprints of Palladio, Sarpi and Vasari, among others. For a complete list of the contents of the Library at Arundel Castle, see: Hatchard, ed., Catalogue of the Library at Arundel Castle, 2 vol., 1905. 96 With his inherent mix of diplomatic, professional and artistic activities, Edward Norgates relationship with the circle of Arundel will be somewhat different to that of the artist not involved in matters of state. 97 Concerning the purchase of Daniel Nyss collection by Arundel, Basil Viscount Feilding wrote: In my last I did something undervalue Daniel Nice his Cabinett and since finde that Mr Petty hath given my lo of Arundell worse relations of itt, to persuade him to fall from the bargaine... which is later followed by the subsequent letter, also from Feilding to James Third Marquis of Hamilton: Daniel Nice his Cabinet wch my Lord of Arundel hath agreed for att an excessive rate, is not worth three thousand pound, wch Mr Petty being much troubled att, would faire bring my lo of Arundell off, and breake the treaty. P. Shakeshaft, To Much Bewiched with Thoes Intysing Things: The Letters of James, Third Marquis of Hamilton and Basil Viscount Feilding, concerning Collecting in Venice 1635-1639, The Burlington Magazine 128, 1986, 78+144-134.

176

around collecting works of art (though he did this with a great degree of astute observation), but also on patronising new works, even if they were simply copies of works he owned or had seen.99 Mentioned briefly by D. Howarth, Arundel supposedly patronised both sculptors (to create works allantica) and painters (from whom he commissioned a variety of pictures).100

Sir Henry Wotton would have been a position to introduce Odoardo Fialetti to the Earl and Countess of Arundel around 1614, who would then go on to etch copies of Pordenones frescos for the Palazzo Tinghe in Udine in that same year.101 The dedication to Arundel is clear, and is included on the image of Diana, stating that the work was done for the Baron and Cavalier da Rondel, and that the works were done after that celebrated painter, Pordenone... by your devoted and reverent servant Odoardo Fialetti.102 Though copies after Pordenone, these works exemplify Fialettis fluency with

98

For further information on Arundel as a collector of drawings, see: D. Sutton, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, as a Collector of Drawings, The Burlington Magazine 89, 1947, in three parts, I pp. 2-9, II pp. 32-34+37, and III pp. 75-77. For more information of Arundels collections in general, see: L. Cust and M.L. Cox, Notes of the Collections Formed by Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, K.G., The Burlington Magazine 19, 1911, 278-286. 99 An example of a copy owned by Arundel is named in Abraham van der Doorts inventory (Windsor MS., f.48): Item done upon the lighte the Sixt beeing the Picture of Adonis Venus Cupid and some doggs by done after Titian wch said limd peece is dated 1631. whereof the Principall in oyle Cullors belongeth to my Lo: of Arrundell. don by Peter Olliver after Titian. wch your Matie wth your owne hands delivd it to my lord Chambleines dwarfe. As transcribed in O. Millar, ed., Abraham van der Doorts Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I, 104. 100 D. Howarth, Lord Arundel as Entrepreneur of the Arts, The Burlington Magazine 122, 1980, 690. 101 For a more in-depth discussion of these works, please see Chapter III of this thesis, section 3.8. The drawing Diana by Pordenone appears faithful to the final composition (though it is the reverse of Fialettis image), though it lacks the delicacy of expression and humanity of the later copy. It also lacks the background detail that Fialetti added, which helps to give depth and enliven the composition. Pordenone, Diana, pen and brown ink, 186x257mm. [LVR, Dpartement des Arts Graphiques, INV 8746, recto]. 102 A glIllmi Smi e Promi Colmi i Sri Baron, e Cavalier da Rondel. Questi pochi carte con li figuri tratte da qualle, del tanto celebre pittoro; il Pordinone, consacra al nome di VV.SS. Illtri loro devoto, e reverente serte Odoardo Fialetti.

177

the medium, which Arundel, as a collector of prints, would have recognised.103 The two men probably also shared an interest in drawings, and exacting understanding of earlier works of art which would have undoubtedly raised Fialettis profile in the circle of Arundel.104

Aletheia Talbot was a patron in her own right, and her relationship with Fialetti is as well documented as that of her husband. She was encouraged from a young age by her grandmother, Bess of Hardwick, to appreciate the classical language of architecture105 and through this her appreciation of art grew. She would have likely met Fialetti through her husband, rather than on her own as a growing patron and collector106; however their later interactions appear quite separate. Her appreciation of the art of drawing, and thus of Fialettis style107 was passed on to her sons and her nephew, who was said to practice the art of drawing as laid out in Fialettis drawing book long after the artists death.108 The most interesting recorded encounter between Fialetti and Aletheia Talbot is not a straightforward case of patronage, however and involves Tizianello, and his Breve

103

Additionally, they exemplify the type of prints in which a great number of collectors were interested, documenting great works of art one would have seen on a tour of Italy. 104 Arundel is mentioned primarily in the context of his wife by Malvasia, however the importance of his knowledge of earlier works is emphasised. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, I, 312. See No. 10, Appendix V. 105 D. Howarth, The Patronage and Collecting of Aletheia, Countess of Arundel 1606 1654, Journal of the History of Collections 10, 1998, 125. 106 Without specific documentation, it is difficult to differentiate the acquisitions of the Countess of Arundel versus those of her husband. This idea is discussed in D. Howarth, The Patronage and Collecting of Aletheia, Countess of Arundel 1606 1654, 125-137. Also mentioned by J. Fletcher, The Arundels in the Veneto, 67. It is currently impossible to separate Aletheias collection from the Earls and although the Tart Hall inventory lists several Venetian paintings it is hard to determine what was his and what hers. 107 See note 104, in which both Aletheia Talbot and Thomas Howard are discussed in connection with Fialetti in Malvasias biography. 108 This account is documented in several different sources, including Malvasia. C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 312. See No. 10, Appendix V.

178

Compendio della Vita del Famoso Titiano Vecellio of 1622.109 The English ambassador in Venice after Sir Henry Wotton, Sir Isaac Wake noted that the Countess had arranged with the painter Titian Tianelo [sic] and paid him to go to England to paint some pictures for her. Not content with deceiving her and taking her money he has gone on to slander her saying he did not go because he feared she would take him to Spain, whither she was going from Genoa.110 In an attempt to placate her for the missing pictures (which occurred some years before Wakes account of 1625), Tizianello dedicated the book to her, naming not only her, but her husband and their collection (especially in the context of the works by Titian which they owned).111 While Tizianello does not mention Fialetti, he is mentioned in the letter to the reader by Santo Grillo (the publisher), who describes him as a most studious painter.112 The nature and sum of Fialettis payment by Tizianello for this work is uncertain, though it is thought that he was later rewarded by the Countess of Arundel for his engraved portrait of Titian.113 While the episode itself is plausible and historically interesting, it, along with the descriptions of Fialetti found in the letter to the reader by Santo Grillo are telling of Fialettis esteem: for a simple engraved portrait (which is admittedly of a lesser quality than a number of his earlier works) he was potentially paid twice, and gained greater admiration from the Countess of
109

T. Vecellio (Tizianello), Breve compendio della Vita del Famoso Titiano Vecellio di Cadore, Venetia (Santo Grillo & Fratelli) 1622. [BL, Rare Books, 117.a.55] 110 D. Howarth, The Patronage of Aletheia, Countess of Arundel 1606 1654, 129. 111 For a transcription, see No. 11, Appendix V. T. Vecellio (Tizianello), Breve compendio della Vita del Famoso Titiano Vecellio di Cadore, A2-A2v. 112 ...adornando lopera con la propria effiggie del sudetto Titiano dissegnata dallIllustre Signor Odoardo fialetti [sic] Pittore studiosissimo, sperando, che riuscir di gusto a tutti le virtuosi, quali io viver sempre con affettuoso desiderio di giovare. T. Vecellio (Tizianello), Breve compendio della Vita del Famoso Titiano Vecellio di Cadore, A Virtuosi Lettori. 113 D. Howarth states (in a section referenced to J. Fletcher), that it was Boschini who gave this account of the payment of Fialetti by the Countess of Arundel. However, it does not appear in La Carta del Navegar Pittoresco. There is a small reference in Malvasia, however it does not appear to name the engraved portrait of Titian as the specific reason for which she rewarded him. ... il quale essercit egregiamente i suoi talenti, e f regallato di colane, gioie, e monete doro... C.C. Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice, 312. The episode is not found in any of the other early biographies of Fialetti.

179

Arundel for his good disegno. Thus it appears that because Fialettis style, based in his superb draughtsmanship, resonated with tastes dictated by English connoisseurs (who were themselves partially informed by treatises by Lomazzo and others which were appearing in England), his status in the circle of the Earl and Countess of Arundel continued to grow throughout the middle period of his career.114 Therefore we can see Fialettis reception as a much more academic one, in response to new ideas on art in Venice, and indeed throughout Europe.

4.1. Edward Norgate Of the artists coming through Venice who were associated with Arundel, the one for whom we have the most information concerning his relationship with Fialetti is Edward Norgate.115 In addition to being a limner, secretary, herald and illuminator, he was also a connoisseur himself, and was sent to Italy by Arundel in 1622 to purchase paintings and sculptures.116 His involvement with art (particularly limning) perhaps helped inform his knowledge of pictures, as related by T. Fuller, in his History of the Worthies of England: [Norgate] was very judicious in Pictures, to which purpose he was imployed into Italy to purchase them for the Earl of Arundel.117 Because of his own collecting activities, the commentary on other works of art found in his treatise, Miniatura or the Art of Limning (the first edition of which is thought to date from 1627-28, and the second edition of

114

As opposed to a simple identification of his work as being that of a genius or based solely on a popular taste, as with earlier Venetian artists. 115 Born c.1581 and died 1650, he is one of the few English artists to mention Fialetti by name, and cite him as an acquaintance in his writings. 116 Norgate was also involved in heraldic work under the patronage of Thomas Howard. J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, New Haven and London 1997, 5. 117 T. Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England, ed. J. Nichols, 2 vols., London 1662, reprint London 1811. As cited in J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 4.

180

which is dated 1648-1649),118 helps illuminate our understanding of taste and perceptions of art during the reign of Charles I.119 Later in his career, he was sent to the Low Countries by Charles I to work with Balthazar Gerbier in obtaining and commissioning works of art.120 Norgates interest in art began much earlier than this, however, as is evidenced by correspondence to William Trunbull in Brussels dated from 1618 in which he states: how very welcome a few Desseings (no such as was supposed I wrote for to Rome) or Drawings of Rewbens or Guill: van Nieulandt would have bene, or would be yet, not that I would impose a matter of chardg upon you for my pleasure, but if some of theire first and sleight drawings either of Landskip or any such kind as might happily be procured for a Word, they being things never sold but given to frends that are Leefhebbers, you know to whome they should be most welcome, and I would willingly defray all chardges.121 His interest in drawings here proves crucial in understanding his esteem of his acquaintance Fialetti, whom he probably met in October 1621.122 Also during that trip it is thought that he met Sir Anthony van Dyck, who later lodged with him in England.123

118

J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 10. The authors give the date of the first edition to 1627-28 is based on Norgates statement, that his friend Paul Bril was now dwelling in Rome, and the knowledge that the Flemish artist died on 7 October 1626. More information on the dating can be found in Muller and Murrell, p. 10. It should also be noted that the editions still appear in manuscript form, and there are slight differences in orthography between the manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bodl. Tanner 326) and the Royal Society (RS 136). 119 Norgate was also familiar with Arundels collections, as noted by S. Foister in her review of J.M. Muller and J. Murrells work: More typical is his comment on creating the effects of black satin, where he commends his reader, if you please to see almost inimitable expressions of such effects, to visit the gallery of the Earl of Arundel.... S. Foister, Review: Miniatura or the Art of Limning, The Burlington Magazine 140, 1998, 403. 120 D. Rodgers, Norgate, Edward, Grove Dictionary of Art, 2008. 121 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 5. 122 Muller and Murrell suggest that it was during Norgates time as a diplomatic courier to Venice that the two men would have met in the circle of the Countess of Arundel. They cite a warrant of payment to Norgate for expenses incurred that year. Norgate was in Rome by 1622, so it is possible that he stayed in Venice for a year. See J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 206, n. 295. The authors also refer to the passage in Malvasia concerning the relationship between Aletheia Talbot and Odoardo Fialetti, in which he states she rewarded him with money, gold chains and jewels (see no. 10, Appendix V for the original Italian). Alternatively, it is suggested by E. Chaney that Fialetti met Norgate (as well as Inigo Jones) through Sir Henry Wotton, though based on the dates of Norgates association with the Countess of Arundel, I feel this would be a more circuitous route. See E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 164.

181

Norgates treatise differs significantly between the earlier and later editions, the later edition being dedicated to Henry Howard, the third Earl of Arundel after the death of Thomas Howard, and aimed not only at the artist, but at the novice and gentleman.124 The pastime of drawing was encouraged for the gentleman scholar, and was rising in popularity due to treatises like Norgates, and books on proper behaviour and comportment, such as Henry Peachams The Compleat Gentleman.125 The treatise refers often to the practices of Nicholas Hilliard126, and was plagiarised by William Sanderson in his Graphice of 1658.127 Like Lomazzo, he addressed theoretical issues, but more importantly, he added information for the novice draughtsman, and that on limning. He advises first that students look at engravings by Hendrik Goltzius and the Sadelers, and those by Palma il Giovane and Odoardo Fialetti, as exemplars of cross-hatching and proper shading.128 Fialetti is emphasised in this instance, both as the friend of Norgate my old acquaintance in Venice129 and as the engraver of the drawing book. The identification of the book as Il vero modo is most likely, though it is not a book in

123

It is also thought that the two men were in Rome in 1622. Van Dycks lodging with Norgate in London lasted approximately one month, during which he paid 15 s. per day, until more suitable lodgings could be found. See D. Howarth, Norgate, Edward, Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford 2004. Norgate discusses Van Dyck in his treatise, and this will be discussed in this chapter. 124 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 12. 125 For more information on Peacham, see F.J. Levy, Henry Peacham and the Art of Drawing, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37, 1974, 174-190. H. Peacham, The Complete Gentleman, The Truth of Our times, and The Art of Living in London, transcribed edition, Ithaca 1962. 126 For information on Hilliard, see: J. Pope-Hennessey, Nicholas Hilliard and Mannerist Art Theory, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 6, 1943, 89-100. For the compiled editions of both Hilliard and Norgate see: R.K.R. Thornton and T.G.S. Cain, eds., A Treatise Concerning the Arte of Limning by Nicholas Hilliard together with A More Compendious Discourse Concerning Ye Arte of Limning by Edward Norgate, Hatfield 1981. 127 D. Rodgers, Norgate, Edward, Grove Dictionary of Art, 2008. 128 No. 12, Appendix V. E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 76. As transcribed in J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 106. For the sake of ease, I will include the corresponding transcription from the above text in brackets after the original page number from Norgates treatise. The authors also note the difference in spelling of Fialettis name between the Royal Society manuscript, which reads Odoardo Fialetti, and the Bodleian manuscript, Edwardo Phialetti. 129 Ibid.

182

folio.130 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell suggest that Norgate was referring to both Il vero modo and Giacomo Francos book after Palma, Il regole per Imperar a Disegnar i Corpi Humani of 1636,131 however given the complex arrangement of figures and its lack of transparency concerning technique (especially in relation to the novitiate to whom Norgate geared his later work) this hypothesis seems unlikely. He then goes on to describe a method for learning to draw the face and body, which as a textual source, mirrors that proposed by Fialettis illustrations. Of these or any of these I would wish you to begin with the Face, and it will not be amisse if you deface a face or two by taking it to peeces, and drawing them peecemeale, that is Eyes in severall postures, the Nose, Mouth, Lipps, Chin &c till having drawne every part apart, you venture upon the whole, and make the face entire. Thence proceed to hands feet and all parts of the bodie and thence to bodies entire. By the observation of this Method you will proceed to whole figures, thence to storyes and soe mi raccomando you are where you would bee.132 Norgates interest in the method of combining individual parts to form a composite whole is an academic one, and he later goes on to discuss the importance of drawing after the life and learning anatomy in an academic setting (though he offers it as an alternative way to learn to draw). ... another way of Designing, that is by frequenting the Academy, which is in Roome, where in the middle, a hired Long sided Porter or such like is to be set, stand or hang naked sometimes in a posture for two or three howres. This fellow is surrounded by a number of Painters, who make him their Model, and drawe him as he appeares to every one. By this practice they pretend to greate skill in the naked Anatomy, and Muscles of the Body, and other eminences appearing in the Life.133

130

The reference as Palma as author is also misleading, as this probably refers to the two exemplars added at the end of Il vero modo, rather than the plates of parts of the body themselves. 131 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 206, n. 295. 132 E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 76 (106). 133 E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 79-80 (108).

183

In his support of both Italian art theory and academic practice, he allied himself with other English artists coming through the circle of Arundel in Venice, including both Inigo Jones and Sir Anthony van Dyck. It is probably because of his diverse professional activities that he was able to bridge the divide between artists and diplomat connoisseurs of this time. It is also crucial to remember that Norgates treatise (though it was only published in a plagiarised form) helped disseminate the artistic practice popularised in Fialettis drawing book, in a similar to fashion to A. Brownes The whole art of drawing, paintings, limning and etching of 1660,134 though almost 40 years earlier (in its manuscript form).

4.2. Inigo Jones Inigo Jones had gained the reputation as a great traveller as early as 1605,135 however it was not until 1613 1614 that he travelled to the Veneto with the Earl and Countess of Arundel.136 Though active in their circle, it is important to note that he probably also had dealings with Sir Henry Wotton, as evidenced by a similarity architectural theory, drawings and tastes, as well as collecting habits.137 In addition to accruing and honing his own classically-based architectural style, and accompanying the Earl and Countess of Arundel as cicerone, he explored his ideas about draughtsmanship through study of

134

A. Browne, The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching. Collected out of the choicest Italian and German authors, London 1660. [BL, Rare Books, C.123.f.22]. 135 E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 168. 136 E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 171 and 208. 137 A. Lytton Sells, The Paradise of Travellers, 75. The author here suggests that Wotton may have showed a set of plans to Jones before his visit to Vicenza in 1614. See also E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 171. Additionally it seems unlikely that two men with such a great interest in Palladio, and architecture in general, would not have met. Wotton published his treatise, Elements of Architecture in 1624, almost ten years after the two would have likely met. For Jones development of an architectural vocabulary, see D. Cast, Speaking of Architecture: The Evolution of a Vocabulary in Vasari, Jones, and Sir John Vanbrugh, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52, 1993, 179-188.

184

works of art, but most interestingly through the use of drawing books. Inigo Joness views on the importance of drawing (and copying) can be found in his copy of Vasaris Lives: gudd manner coms by copiinge ye fayrest thinges.138 From this, and the passages it is known he underlined in the Lives concerning imitating the best of nature139 one can understand that Joness drawing technique resonated with the ideals of those artists producing drawing books, creating perfect, composite forms from individual parts.

Unlike Norgate, in which one can rely on the textual tradition to document his relationship with Fialetti, Inigo Jones relationship is undocumented, but can be traced more simply through a number of drawings which relate to images by (or after Fialetti). In looking at possible meeting between Jones and Fialetti, one must remember that both were very active in Venice at the time, Fialetti having completed the Four Divinities etchings dedicated to Thomas Howard in 1614, and Jones acting as their cicerone, and therefore it seems almost counterintuitive to think that the two artists did not meet.140 Jones sketches from this period141 are often identifiable details from works by artists whom Vasari discussed, including The Fainting Virgin from an etching after Parmigianinos Entombment,142 or studies after drawing books, such as that by Oliviero Gatti after Guercino.143 Beyond the book by Gatti, is uncertain which drawing books Jones may have owned or had access to, however based on the type of studies, including

138 139

J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art, and the Practice of Drawing, The Art Bulletin 74, 1992, 247. Imitate ye best of nature, also appears in the margins. Ibid. 140 There is no textual tradition to support this, however in conducting research for this chapter, I would find it difficult assume that they did not meet, given their contacts (Wotton in particular), interests, and obvious proximity through either (or both) Thomas Howard and Aletheia Talbot. This assumption is also supported by J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art, and the Practice of Drawing, 258. 141 Now divided between Chatsworth (the Devonshire Collection), and Worcester College, Oxford. Ibid. 142 J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art, and the Practice of Drawing, 250. 143 Interestingly, however, the majority of the studies are concentrated on the head and parts of the head.

185

hands holding various objects, and carefully delineated sections of the lower half of the face, Fialettis drawing book seems a likely candidate. Of particular interest, are the plates of hands, Studies of Hands and Fingers.144 While there is a clear debt to Gattis print after Guercino, the way in which Jones separates the finger joints is entirely in keeping with work by Fialetti. Additionally, the drawing containing Two Studies of a Mouth and Nose145 displays a more active pattern of cross-hatching than that by Gatti, again, reminiscent of Fialettis middle period works. In addition to his interest in improving his disegno in the Italian fashion, Jones also shared with Fialetti (and others who were exponents of dissection and anatomical study for artists) an interest in human anatomy, and made a few drawings after Vesalius 1543 De humani corporis fabrica libri septem (of which he owned a copy and later gave to King Charles I).146 While Fialetti did not obviously influence any of Jones designs, it may be fair to say that he did influence his working method. That is, Jones built an architectural style on a vocabulary of independent classical parts, which upon proper reassembly (and in proper proportion), would provide an aesthetically pleasing result, which is (at its core) the same method laid out by Fialetti in Il vero modo.147

4.3. Sir Anthony van Dyck

144

Chatsworth, Devonshire Collection. As reproduced in J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art and the Practice of Drawing, 259, fig. 26. 145 Chatsworth, Devonshire Collection. As reproduced in J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art and the Practice of Drawing, 259, fig. 24. 146 J. Wood, Inigo Jones, Italian Art and the Practice of Drawing, 258-259. 147 While not all of Fialettis sources are classical, he does adhere to roughly classical proportion, and utilises a number of drawings after classical torsos known to be present in the Tintoretto studio. A great number of his heads are of a standard type, depicting the three ages of man, and grotesque figures. It can also perhaps be discussed that Fialettis style, based in disegno, is inherently more sculptural than that of his master, and this tactile sense, the depth with which he drew many figures, may have also resonated with Jones and his later use of space and void in architecture.

186

The third artist who came through the circle of Arundel with whom Fialetti probably had contact was Sir Anthony van Dyck. He arrived in the Veneto in 1622 and met up with the Countess of Arundel there148 before settling in England to work as court painter for Charles I. As a young artist under Rubens, van Dyck would have had a slightly broader exposure to continental Renaissance art than Inigo Jones, but his motives were much the same for travelling around Italy. Van Dycks interest in contemporary drawing books is unknown. Norgate described Van Dycks drawing activities in Italy in his treatise: to this purpose the excellent Vandike, at our being in Italie was neat exact and curious in all his drawings, but since his cominge here, in all his Later drawings, was ever juditious, never exact.149 Van Dycks interest in drawing and studying earlier Italian art offers a tenuous link to the interests of Fialetti, and given their concurrent involvement with Aletheia Talbots artistic circle, it would seem unlikely that they did not meet.

Van Dycks studies are well documented in his Italian sketchbook, which contains 121 leaves of sketches after Italian painting and sculpture, dating between 1614 and 1641.150 Of these sketches, many are labelled as being after Titian151; however, van Dyck seems to use this label rather loosely. The sketches often focus on a small group of figures or drapery, and can in many instances be traced back to a specific painting, though some images are more ambiguous. Of these ambiguous studies, very few are studies like those

148

D. Howarth, Lord Arundel and his Circle, 156. This was also near the time when Fialetti created the engraved portrait of Titian for the Breve Compendio, and also marks a period of activity in the circle of the Countess of Arundel. 149 J.M. Muller and J. Murrell, eds., E. Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, 79 (108). 150 The Italian Sketchbook is in the British Museum. A. van Dyck, Italian Sketchbook, c. 1614-41. [BM, Flemish c. 204 XVIIc, 1957-12-14-207] 151 In his article, D. Jaff suggests that some of the sketches after Titian are in fact not after the originals, but rather prints. D. Jaff, New Thoughts on Van Dycks Italian Sketchbook, The Burlington Magazine 143, 2001, 616.

187

seen in drawing books,152 two of which can be compared (or related) to the work of Fialetti (or another Italian artist involved in the production of drawing or model books).153 The Study of a Leg, from folio 48 [Fig. 5.9], is given by van Dyck as being after Titian; however the musculature is both too defined and too accurate to resemble either the work of the artist, as in his St John the Baptist,154 or that of his pupil Jan Stephen van Calcar in his illustrations for Vesalius Epitome of 1543.155 Rather, the artists sketch, with its deep chiaroscuro between muscles in flexion, and careful attention given to the knee,156 appears more characteristic of work by contemporary artists and anatomists. From Fialettis oeuvre, two examples emerge, one plate of the upper thigh from Il vero modo, and the second in several examples from the corchs in Spieghels De humani corporis fabrica libri decem.157 Unlike the Study of a Semi-Nude Male, this particular drawing also does not appear to relate to a sculptural cast. The Study of a Semi-Nude Male from the previous page is more typical drawing one would expect to find from the artist studying earlier painting and sculpture, rather than the artist studying aspects of good disegno from drawing books (like Inigo Jones). The drawing is quick, and he has utilised a rather lumpy style of anatomising, and has thus copied the

152

Drawings that do resemble academic studies include: Study of a Semi-Nude Male (labelled as titian), p. 47, and Study of a Leg (labelled as titian), p. 48. 153 The idea that Van Dyck was making his sketches after prints of Titian, and other artists, gives credence to the validity of this idea. For information on Van Dyck and prints after Titian, see D. Jaff, New Thoughts on Van Dycks Italian Sketchbook, 616. Jaff does not discuss either folio 48 or 49 in his article. 154 Titian, St John the Baptist, c. 1535-42, oil on canvas, 201x134cm. Galleria dellAccademia, Venice. 155 In particular, the Adam figure of the Epitome provides a good contrast. The Fabrica does not contain any views of surface anatomy. While the Vesalian illustrations are accurate and beautifully printed, the corchs are not as active as those in later anatomical treatises, and none stand in a posture which could be seen as comparable to the diagonal created by van Dyck in this drawing. A. Vesalius, suorum de humani corporis fabrica librorum Epitome, Basel 1543. [BL, Rare Books, C.18.e.4] 156 It should be remembered that Fialetti dedicated an entire page of Il vero modo to the contours of the knee. 157 A. Spieghel, De humani corporis fabrica libri decem, Venetiis (Euangelistam Deuchinum) 1627. [BNM, 097.D.012] In particular, one can see a resemblance between this sketch and the following plates: Tab. I, Lib. I; Tab. VIII, Lib. IV and Tab. VII, Lib. VIII.

188

anatomical errors of the earlier artist.158 Where he has carried out more traditional studies of Old Master paintings, one sees van Dyck perpetuating their errors in anatomy, but where he has perhaps copied a contemporary drawing book, he corrects them. Therefore while we may never know if van Dyck owned or used a contemporary drawing or model books, their potential use for the established artist is evident in situations such as this. Additionally, because it is likely that he met Fialetti through the circle of the Countess of Arundel, it would be a logical conclusion that he was perhaps exposed to his artistic activities in that way.

5. Fialettis Impact on Later English Artists Odoardo Fialettis influence in England did not rely solely on the relationships he built with Wotton, the Earl and Countess of Arundel and artists passing through their circle. Rather with these contacts as the foundation for his introduction into the English artistic vernacular, his printed works were brought back and circulated, finding audiences easily because of their appearance in a culture with a growing interest in both Italian art and theoretical ideas of good disegno (especially those laid out in Haydockes 1598 translation of Lomazzo). His visual examples of the theory made popular by Central Italian authors, and the translation of those ideas into useful models for amateur draughtsmen ensured the success of Fialettis work, and copies thereafter throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Of these copied examples, two are of

158

The Study of a Semi-Nude Male is perhaps a St Jerome type, and is attributed by van Dyck to Titian. The figure is truncated at the waist with a suggestion of drapery, but it is not completed. The figure itself appears physiologically strange because of the errors made in the flexion of all the muscles of the shoulder, the inclusion of extra muscles in the upper chest wall, and an abnormally pronounced biceps brachii. These characteristics do not appear to be Mannerist in their depiction, that is, their distortion appears to be a mistake rather than a wilful change made to the fabric of the body for the sake of beauty.

189

particular significance in the history of the English drawing book: the works of Isaac Fuller and Alexander Browne. Both artists compiled their works after Fialettis death, and thus they, like a number of others, were relying on drawing books to supplement their studies, as an alternative to knowledge to be gained by copying details of Old Master paintings and classical sculpture on a Grand Tour.

Isaac Fuller (c. 1606 1672)159 published his book, Un Libro da Designiare in London in 1654 and based many of his studies on the work of Fialetti.160 The book comprises fourteen plates, including a title page161 and moves from studies of facial features to the proportions of the head, and studies of hands, feet, legs, and various facial types. It also contains etchings of putti and a sea god. Fullers drawing book was, until quite recently, thought to be lost,162 and thus a careful comparison with the work of Fialetti has not been carried out prior to this thesis. Fuller himself did travel on the continent, having studied under Franois Perrier,163 thus it is uncertain whether he gained familiarity with Fialettis prints there or in England. It is of note that Fullers drawing book, like Fialettis, contains no text, and is purely visual in its instruction. This differs significantly from the textual
159

D.H. Solkin argues that Fuller was probably born around 1620, rather than the traditionally accepted 1606 based on a self-portrait in the Bodleian Library. D.H. Solkin, Isaac Fullers Escape of Charles II: A Restoration Tragicomedy, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 62, 1999, 200. 160 I. Fuller, Vn libro da designiare, London (Printed & Sold by P. Stent at the White Horse in Guildspur Streete betwixt Newgate & PyCorner) 1654. [BM, 167*.b.40, 1973,0224.1-14] Each page measures 96x154mm, and of these four plates are signed with Fullers initials I.F. (followed by either in. for a drawing of his own invention, or F. for an etching after another artist). The paper upon which the drawing book is printed is watermarked, bearing a man in a hat oriented along the vertical axis of the page. There are no visible countermarks. The only potential evidence of previous ownership is an inscription in brown ink on the verso of page 12 which reads: Thomas Bardwoll is q Ro. A man of nords and not of doods is like or grndor- full of moods and when the moods Co gin(?) so grow. 161 The title page depicts a reclining woman with two putti holding a drawing of themselves, placed against a rocky outcrop. It bears no resemblance to the title page of Fialettis drawing book, nor indeed any drawing book of which I am aware. 162 D.H. Solkin, Isaac Fullers Escape of Charles II: A Restoration Tragicomedy, 200. 163 Solkin also makes note of the fact that Fuller was probably familiar with Perriers etchings after antique sculpture.

190

tradition of his predecessors, such as Haydocke, and his contemporaries, including Alexander Browne, and thus his may be seen as the most pure interpretation after Fialettis work that we have in the tradition of English drawing books.

The first four prints, depicting Studies of Noses, Studies of Eyes, The Lower Face and Studies of Ears164 are very similar to studies by Fialetti. In particular, the plate of eyes is certainly copied after the artist, however Fuller has only chosen the most complete examples, rather than demonstrating the progression of their design as in Il vero modo. While in many cases the designs may be based on those of Fialetti, they are often not exact copies, and the printing in Fullers book often appears heavy and lacking the delicacy of the originals. Additionally, while he does replicate the cross-hatching, and dot-in-lozenge shading favoured by the Italian artist, it lacks the efficacy and accuracy to provide depth, and instead appears stubbly. From these cursory studies of the parts of the face, Fuller then diverges from the programme in Fialettis small drawing book165 to give a plate concerning the proportion of the head in several views.

While Fuller does take inspiration from Fialetti, a number of his studies are his own creations, including the subsequent two plates, Studies of Hands and Feet and Studies of Arms. A number of these studies appear to have been completed quickly, with an economy of line, as if he has simply etched the contents of his own notebook, rather than providing progressive examples for students to follow. While it is uncertain whether
164

The Studies of Ears is the first signed plate in the book, and contains the cursive I.F. monogram in the lower left corner next to the page number. 165 Fialetti includes a similar study in the large version of the drawing book. The demarcation of the head in the study of proportion is a traditional tool of the artist, and was used most notably in Albrecht Drers book on proportion.

191

Fuller used any other Italian drawing books in the preparation of his own work, the plate depicting the Studies of Arms is distinctly reminiscent of Giacomo Francos Regole, and its tangled limbs. The final plates of the book contain a number of studies of the heads of different figures, and then full figures, including two plates of muscular putti and the socalled Sea God. It, like Palmas etchings in Fialettis drawing book, is more highly finished than the previous plates, and is a fully-developed scene of the god leaning on a vase which is spilling water into the foreground. The scene is replete with perspectival errors, causing the figure to look as if he is missing both half his arm and the top of his head. Fullers interest in Fialettis work is evident here as he places great emphasis on the muscles of the chest wall and the ribcage. In addition to the drawing book, Fuller copied other works by Fialetti, including figures from the 1610 Tritons and Nereids series, in his Frieze with two sea men of c. 1650-60 [Fig. 5.10].166 This suggests that the artist was familiar with a wider corpus of Fialettis work, perhaps including other print series beyond these two. Thus Fialettis significance as an exemplar of both good disegno and good etching for English artists of the mid-seventeenth century is elucidated through the life of Isaac Fuller.

A second writer on art technique of this period was Alexander Browne.167 His treatise of 1660 entitled The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching168 contains text

166

I. Fuller, Frieze with two sea men. Etching, 225x324mm, c.1650-60. [BM, British XVIIc Mounted Roy, D,7.31] 167 For more information on Alexander Browne, see: F. Hard, Richard Haydocke and Alexander Browne: Two Half-Forgotten Writers on the Art of Painting, PMLA 55, 1940, 727-741. Browne died in 1706, and was a miniature painter and auctioneer. 168 A. Browne, The whole art of drawing, painting, limning and etching. Collected out of the choicest Italian and German authors, London 1660. [BL, Rare Books, C.123.f.22] The page facing the title page depicts a crude adaptation of Fialettis title page which attributes authorship of some of the original plates to Fialetti under a crest: of Drawing, Limning, & c. Invented by Odoardo Fialet and others.

192

and visual examples of the four disciplines he enumerates in the title. Brownes treatise acts as an intermediary between the purely theoretical treatise and the purely visual one, aiming to reach as wide an audience as possible including the artist, enthusiast and student. In his later edition of 1669, Ars pictoria, or An academy treating of drawing, painting, limning and Etching, he states that he has added thirty plates to the originals of the earlier work, this time also including Netherlandish artists.169 Unlike Fuller, who used Fialettis studies from Il vero modo as a basis for his own work, Browne appears to have copied the plates exactly.170 He utilises a number of originals in the section of his text on the art of drawing, but never mentions Fialetti by name. In both his Whole Art of Drawing and Ars Pictoria, he includes discussions on the importance of proportion: Neither yet is this Proportion proper unto painting alone, but extendeth itself even unto all other Arts; insomuch as is drawn from mans Body, which as the Painter chiefly proposeth to himself.171 He is also indebted to Fialetti for the importance he places on the study of the human body and anatomy, suggesting the use of anatomical treatises and drawing books, and he states in The Whole Art of Drawing that: there are also good Books of Anatomies with Prints and instructions to them, which are very usefull for one that intends to draw a

169

A. Browne, Ars pictoria, or An academy treating of drawing, painting, limning, and Etching, London 1669. To which are added Thirty Copper Plates expressing the choicest, nearest and most exact Grounds and Rules of Symetry; collected out of the most Eminent Italian, German and Netherland Authors. The newly added plates were taken from Arnold de Jode, which he copied from earlier drawing books. See A. Griffiths, Browne, Alexander, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 8, Oxford 2004, 142-143. 170 It is uncertain whether or not these are the original plates: their size and composition appears identical, thus their purchase and reprinting must be considered. However it is highly likely that that the plates printed by Sadeler for Fialetti were kept by the Sadelers, as the will of Jan Sadeler mentions a number of plates and engraved figures which were to be kept in the family. Thus it would seem logical that a similar arrangement concerning ownership of plates would be made by Justus. See No. 13, Appendix V for a transcription. Jan Sadeler, Notaio Figolin, Testamenti, Archivio Notarile, b. 404, no. 564. [ASV] Therefore, if one assumes a similar arrangement, it seems unlikely that the plates would have been purchased by Browne. 171 A. Browne, Ars pictoria, 2. The discussion in The Whole Art of Drawing is similar: Withall be sure to use your utmost to endeavour to make things of an answerable and equall proportion and bigness according to Art... A. Browne, The Whole Art of Drawing, Painting, Limning and Etching, 5.

193

good Naked Figure, which you can never be eminent at, without you understand the Anatomy and use to Draw after the Life very much.172 Brownes treatises thus emphasise good disegno and proportion as the basis for all other arts, with these sections situated before the others. The later section on painting, mentions a number of artists as exemplars Raphael Urbine, Leonard Vincent, Antonius de Coreggio and Titian, but (with the exception of Titian) does not name any Venetian painter from whom the tradition of the illustrated drawing book grew. Additionally, in the Art of Etching, he also does not mention Fialetti (or any other etcher), and therefore has essentially appropriated the earlier artists plates into his own treatise. This action, and that by Fuller to a lesser extent, helps explain the obscurity of Fialettis name historically: while he signed his own plates during his lifetime, their use as examples of good technique was noted and they filtered through various artistic texts and academies as copies (without the credit for their design in a majority of cases) or rarely in their original state. As the works became increasingly removed from the originals both stylistically, and chronologically, they began to be attributed to more well-known artists in an attempt to justify their use as good examples based on the myth of their origin in the studio of the Renaissance genius.

Unlike many foreign artists coming to England whose impact was based largely on their name and grand style of painting, Fialettis impact was a more tacit one, in which he infiltrated the vernacular of artistic education and practice for the student and gentleman scholar alike. While in many cases his name was eventually erased from its place in the artistic heritage of the drawing book, it did survive in a number of circles, and his work was still esteemed through the eighteenth century. In particular, Sir Joshua Reynolds, in
172

A. Browne, The Whole Art of Drawing, Painting, Limning and Etching, 3.

194

his Italian Sketchbook of 1752, made specific note of Fialettis print after Tintorettos Wedding at Cana: In the Sagristy173 the Marriage of Cana in Gallile by Tintoretto a print by Odoardo Fialetti painter & disciple of Tintoret.174 While he does not mention the quality of the print or his opinion of it, it does demonstrate the fact that Reynolds found it important enough to name in his record of travels throughout the region.175 His own views on art were, of course, in line with the earlier seventeenth century academic tradition, and in his Discourses, he perpetuated the ideals of good disegno176 exemplified by Fialettis print (even if later in his own career he did not use the practice of drawing as fully as he had in his earlier work), and the importance of copying after great artists (much of his own Venetian sketchbook amounts to copies after Tintoretto). Even later examples citing a clear influence exist in the tradition of the English drawing book, including N. Whittocks The British Drawing Book177 published in the mid-19th century, in which several plates of features (notably plate 41 and 43 [Figs. 5.11 and 5.12], depicting eyes and hands respectively) owe their origin to Fialettis plates of the same subjects, and the methods he suggested.

6. Conclusion Odoardo Fialettis contribution to art in England was twofold: the impact of his ideas of disegno as practical instruction for artists (and thus directly on the art of the period), and
173 174

Of Santa Maria della Salute in Venice. J. Reynolds, Italian Sketchbook, 1750-1752, 9, 8r. [BM, 201.a.9-10] 175 For more information on Reynolds Italian sketchbook, see: D. Manning, Reynolds in Venice, The Burlington Magazine 149, 2006, 754-763. Though Manning does not mention Tintorettos Wedding at Cana, or Fialettis copy after it, he does emphasise Reynolds use of guidebooks to inform his studies. 176 Nothing is denied to well-directed labour; nothing is to be obtained without it... [the young artist must] amass a stock of ideas, to be combined and varied as occasion may require. J. Reynolds, and R.R. Wark, ed., Discourses on Art, New Haven and London 1997, Discourse II. 177 N. Whittock, The British Drawing Book: or, the Art of Drawing with Accuracy and Beauty, London (Sears, Printer, Ivy Lane, St Pauls). [Authors own copy, inscribed with dedication 1848]

195

the impact of his work as theoretical, which would influence the tastes of the connoisseur. Concerning his influence artistically, it is of course difficult to trace specific details from his oeuvre through the painted medium. It is more constructive, however, to trace the importance of his practical advice for artists. By suggesting a method for drawing in a completely visual medium, and without explanatory text, the practical nature of Fialettis drawing book, and his model books in general, would have been immediately obvious. The suggestion that this method of learning to draw by creating individual studies and combining them together into a composite whole was taken up by experienced artists, including Inigo Jones, attests to his importance visually.

His art (both painted and printed) was appreciated by early connoisseurs and collectors, including Sir Henry Wotton and the Earl and Countess of Arundel. Through their patronage and collecting, and interest in both contemporary Venetian painting in the vein of Tintoretto (as with Wotton), and prints with a more Central Italian influence (in the case of Arundel), Fialetti was raised from relative obscurity in Venice to be what appears as a central point of contact for artists and connoisseurs of note passing through the active English political and collecting circles in the city. Though he appears as a minor artist in contemporary Italian biographies, it cannot be ignored that a large number of important English collectors and artists aligned themselves with him because of his artistic activities (and also potentially his own role as a connoisseur of drawings). Because his superb draughtsmanship was the key to his art, it not only echoed the more traditional English interest in Northern art, but also the burgeoning interest in Italian art. It also spoke to the theoretical interests pursued by those who were influenced by textual treatises on artistic

196

practice appearing in England at the end of the sixteenth century. His work, as the earliest known drawing book of its kind, provided the visual examples to support the texts of the Central Italian theorists, and thus he as an artist responding to the early advice from Tintoretto to draw and draw again178 sets himself as a disciple (and exemplar to be imitated) of the new tradition of drawing in Venice at the beginning of the seventeenth century. And thus in a very simple way, his art helped inform the theoretical understanding of good disegno, and thus informed the taste of connoisseurs and collectors who appreciated it.

178

Il vecchio soggiunse, che dovesse disegnare, e ancora disegnare. C. Ridolfi, Le Maragivlie dellArte, vol. II, Padova (Tipografia e Fonderia Cartallier) 1837, reprint 2000, 248.

197

Chapter VI: Conclusion

Odoardo Fialettis life and career are indicative of an artist operating in a cultural climate on the brink of change. This change is not only stylistic, but is also expressed in terms of output, type of commission and patronage. Though his most influential artistic training is thought to have occurred during his time in the Tintoretto studio, thus placing him within the frame of the Venetian masters of the Cinquecento, his academic interests and early training in Bologna imbued his work with a sense of naturalism and inherent grasp of central Italian disegno. This melange of the traditional Venetian interest in colorito and the new demand for disegno creates an interesting character in his painted works, and foreshadows his eventual shift to working almost exclusively in the printed medium later in life. His artistic output also varies greatly from earlier artists in that while he painted a number of works for Venetian churches, scuole and private patrons, the number of printed works dwarfs the paintings tenfold. The diversity of subject matter in the prints also dwarfs that depicted in paintings, and is able to cross genres, reaching not only the more traditional patron or viewer of a work of art, but also amateur artists, gentleman scholars and enthusiasts, physicians and anatomists, as well as religious, military, literary and aristocratic audiences. While this emphasis on the printed medium may have hindered his reputation as a Venetian painter in the centuries after his death, causing his name to be overshadowed not only by his master, but also his contemporaries, it conversely allowed for a farther-reaching influence and easier transference of his work throughout Europe, in particular his anatomy for Casseri and his drawing book, Il vero modo. This increased facility in acquiring works, and transferring them across geographic borders is particularly important regarding the discussion of his place within the English

198

circles operating in Venice in the early Seicento, as it allowed diplomats and artists passing through the city to bring works back to Britain with greater ease. This helped to propagate his artistic method and style based in disegno and the academic traditions to which he may have been exposed during his early travels in Rome. The status of his English contacts combined with the knowledge concerning the later copies of his drawing book by English artists attests to his impact on the formation of an Italianate sensibility in the appreciation and connoisseurship of the visual arts in England. Therefore Fialetti cannot be characterised in the same way as his predecessors. He does not belong to the framework which separates artists based by tiers and medium; instead, he is a new type of artist with an impressive diversity of subject matter, important patrons, and an varied audience. His reputation varied not only in the centuries after his death, but also during his lifetime, based primarily on the receptiveness of the audience (be it patron, viewer or biographer) to his particular brand of narrative structure and composition based in disegno and repetition of ideas and forms in the wake of the Venetian colourists.

As a historical figure, comparatively little is known about Odoardo Fialetti and his family. While Malvasia and Boschini elaborate on the details of his early life in Bologna, training under Cremonini and travels to Rome, their validity as early sources without a solid archival tradition calls into question their complete accuracy. Boschinis status as a pupil of Fialetti may afford his account more credence given his close relationship; however it does not guarantee truth in all accounts. His early training in Bologna under Cremonini left a lasting impression on the character of his art, underlying his technique with a Bolognese naturalism that was evident in both paintings and prints. Fialettis

199

travels to Rome, though of uncertain date and length, also left a lasting impression on his oeuvre. From these travels, Fialetti accrued a large number of ideas, which he would use directly (including his prints after Polidoro da Caravaggio), and indirectly, as well as increasing his interest in the academic tradition flourishing in Central Italy, which would later inform his drawing book, Il vero modo.

These Bolognese and Central Italian ideas remained prominent in his work, even as he joined the Tintoretto studio in the late Cinquecento. Because it is likely he entered the studio around 1590, it is uncertain how much contact or direct influence the ageing Tintoretto had on Fialetti. However, one can see a distinct debt to the master in Fialettis use of light in a number of his works, including the paintings for the church of San Giuliano, and his prints for Gersusalemme Liberata. By 1596, two years after Jacopos death, Fialetti was already beginning his career as an etcher and engraver, and was enrolled in the printmakers guild. His status as a master painter came in 1604, which marked the first year he was listed in the Fraglia dei Pittori (with the Crucifixion for the church of Santa Croce being the most likely candidate for his masterpiece). Fialettis early career appears to have progressed in the tradition of earlier Venetian painters, with a number of commissions for Venetian churches, and a smaller number for private patrons. Also in the tradition of earlier Venetian painters, was Fialettis membership in a Scuola Grande. My research has shown that Fialetti was a member of the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro between 1620 and 1622, and that it was likely through this membership that he met his associate Francesco Valegio, with whom he worked on a number of printed works, including Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae, and his student, Francesco

200

Negri. Not only did the confraternity provide the artist with a devotional structure and a social network, but it was also the source for a number of commissions, which again supports previous relationships of this kind (most notably the Bellini and the Scuole Grandi of San Giovanni Evangelista and San Marco), affirming the professional relationship that artists could gain from membership in a Scuola Grande in Venice during the Cinquecento and Seicento.

Fialettis paintings have historically been ignored in favour of assigning him a reputation as copyist. This thesis has endeavoured to reconstruct the painted oeuvre. From this, and study of archival documents, it has become apparent that Fialettis paintings and patrons are more diverse than previously assumed. He created works for guilds, scuole, churches, and private patrons. Of the approximately 50 paintings recorded in early biographies and archival documents, less than ten (excluding the pictures for Sir Henry Wotton) are still concretely attributed to the artist. The lack of paintings causes difficulty in fully defining the artists style, or differentiating between his early pictures and more mature works. From those paintings which do exist, Fialettis work can be characterised as being indebted to both Tintoretto and the Bolognese schools, with an emphasis on disegno over colorito, and responding to other artists in the city, though not subscribing to any one dominant school or movement. As with Venetian art of the early Seicento, Fialetti can be characterised as possessing a certain eclecticism, utilising a number of different compositional ideas to best define his narrative structure. The examination of the painted works also provides more general information on the status Fialetti would have enjoyed

201

as a painter, given the relatively large number of commissions completed over the relatively short period of time during which he is thought to have been active.

Fialettis greatest historical contribution is inarguably his printed material. Comprising approximately 450 known prints (nearly double the number traditionally given by Bartsch), their diversity of subject matter is rare in any artists oeuvre, attesting to his understanding of the inherent characteristics of the printed medium and his mastery of it. His work encompasses single prints and series after earlier artists, treatises on drawing and ornament, books on sport, love, and allegory, illustrations for literary works (including etchings for Torquato Tassos Gerusalemme Liberata), treatises on city defences, and religious costume, many of which were valued not only for their usefulness within particular spheres, but also for their artistic merit, as demonstrated by the prevalence of illustrations cut down from larger works in public and private collections. His success in creating both artistic and scientific prints which were copied for several centuries after his death speaks volumes on his influence on later artists, students, and scientists. The printed works span the length and breadth of his career, and as such are ideal to characterise the maturation of his style, type and length of commission and patronage. Fialettis early style is inspired by more mannerist sensibilities and the predominant style of Tintoretto, with a focus on the effect of light, line and the importance of chiaroscuro. As he matured, he abandoned the excessively careful early style for one with more latitude for variation in line and weight, creating a heightened sense of movement and vivacity. After the publication of Il vero modo in 1608, arguably his most important work, Fialetti took increasingly lengthy and complex commissions

202

commensurate with his growing stature and reputation, working with notable Venetian printers and publishers from the Arte dei Libreri e Stampatori, and gaining an increasing number of important patrons. Listing the known patrons for the printed works, we are presented with an account of aristocratic Venetian families, ambassadors, English aristocracy, artists, and notable contemporary figures, suggesting that his prints remained popular until his death.

Odoardo Fialettis breadth of work is one of the defining characteristics that separates him from a number of contemporaries. It is my hypothesis that his early exposure to anatomical study through his brother Tiberio, a surgeon, would prove crucial to his later style (and provide him entry to the Tintoretto studio), and his inherent mastery of the depiction of the human body, in paintings, prints, and in particular Casseris Tabulae Anatomicae. The relationship between artists and anatomists is complex, and Fialettis relationship with Casseri is foreshadowed by Titians pupil Jan Stephen van Calcar, who is thought to have illustrated Vesalius Fabrica of 1543. Through the examination of Il vero modo, and the 1604 Venetian edition of Vesalius (for which I suggest Fialettis involvement), Fialetti demonstrates an interest in naturalistic figures for use by both artists and anatomists, therefore making anatomical study more accessible for both audiences and creating an inherent interdisciplinarity in his own oeuvre. The plates for Casseris anatomy, including both the 77 original and 20 additional plates commissioned by Daniel Bucretius, as well as De Formato Foetu constitute one of the most complex illustrated anatomical programmes of the Seicento. The Tabulae Anatomicae, absorbed into Spieghels De humani corporis fabrica libri decem not only surpassed Vesalius in

203

the originality of posture and accurate anatomical detail, but would not be rivalled until the end of the Settecento. As with a number of his other prints, Fialettis anatomical illustrations were copied as soon as five years after their publication, and included in pirated editions, and later treatises, and were used and copied by students of art and medicine in their studies, thus securing a unique place in the history of the illustrated anatomical treatise (which is especially prominent given that many earlier artists working on anatomical texts remain anonymous, while he signed several prints).

While Odoardo Fialetti probably never left Italy, his ideas concerning good disegno were appreciated by English diplomats, collectors, connoisseurs, and artists passing through Venice, and brought back from the continent via paintings and printed works by the artist. These ideas, which were copied by later English artists and resonated with the burgeoning collective seventeenth century English tastes in Italian art. His primary English contacts, Sir Henry Wotton (for whom Fialetti painted at least six pictures commemorating his time in Venice), the Earl and Countess of Arundel, (to whom Fialetti dedicated a series of prints), would provide the artist with a number of introductions and contacts passing through their circles in Venice, who actively or tacitly brought Fialettis ideas back to England. These included Edward Norgate, who summarised Fialettis visual ideas in his own treatise, and Inigo Jones, who utilised drawing books to improve his own disegno, and transferred the concept of the combination of individual parts into a composite whole to his own thoughts on architecture. Thus this figure, who appears relatively minor in the history of Venetian art, has become a central point of contact for artists and connoisseurs of note passing through the city. In that vein, the work of

204

Odoardo Fialetti, based in his superb draughtsmanship, can be seen as a bridge: linking the more traditional English interests in Northern art, and the new interest in Italian painting and printmaking, as well as linking artists, students, enthusiasts and connoisseurs through the dual practical and theoretical uses of his drawing book.

There is a wealth of information yet to be discovered about this enigmatic and (historically) improperly defined figure. While this study aims to provide a reasonably complete picture of Fialettis life and works, we still know comparatively little about the artist and aspects of his life. This is due in part to his early eclipse by Tintoretto and contemporaries such as Palma il Giovane, and as a result his archival presence is relatively small. However, I do not think this is a great impediment to further study. In particular, further investigation could be conducted on his travels to Rome, and the impact on his art of any studios he may have frequented there. Additionally, more information could probably be gained concerning his involvement in the Scuola Grande di San Teodoro, any offices he may have held, and the relationship between that membership and the paintings he created for them. Though it was beyond the scope of this thesis, more work can also be done on the lost paintings, tracing those which were not patently destroyed, and offering attributions for currently anonymous works in Venetian and international collections, based on subject matter, provenance and style.

Based in this information, concerning his life and works, it becomes clear that Odoardo Fialetti occupies a different place from either the Venetian painters of the Cinquecento or contemporary Seicento printmakers. Throughout his career he took on a number of

205

different roles painter, printmaker, illustrator of anatomical treatises, and proponent of the academic tradition and the importance of disegno some of them simultaneously. With such a variety in activity, there was a corresponding variety in reputation, both during his lifetime and throughout the historical record. These two sets of circumstances create a profile for a man who defies classification by medium or tier, thus helping to define the changing role of the artist, our interpretation of them and their place in Seicento Venice. While artists working primarily as painters often have a clearer, and possibly greater, influence, due to the public nature of viewing their work, the new type of Seicento artist, who engaged with different media and different audiences, cannot be automatically categorised as being of lesser importance. In fact, one could argue that because of the greater variety in audience, achieved through a diversity of output and audience, their historical influence may in fact be greater because their art reaches beyond the traditional viewer of paintings in churches, public buildings and private collections.

Though his career is thought to have lasted less than 50 years, inclusive of his time under Tintoretto, the breadth of Fialettis oeuvre, encompassing paintings for Venetian churches, private patrons and public buildings, churches outside Venice, prints depicting a large number of subjects in a number of formats, prints for scientific treatises and works for English patrons, is rare in any artists oeuvre. Therefore in this sense, Fialettis influence, which asserts itself in a less obvious manner than his master Tintoretto, achieves a kind of tangibility. As a historical figure, he exemplifies the changing role of the artist in the midst of the Venetian debate on colour versus line, and in a society

206

turning increasingly toward the potential of the print. The sum total of Odoardo Fialettis influence, felt primarily in Italy and England, but also in France and Northern Europe, where a great number of his works were copied, suggests that his position and reputation has been historically misinformed, from the Settecento biographies until the present day. His status was more correctly described by earlier authors, who, potentially recognising his contribution to various spheres of influence, named him as one of the greatest draughtsmen and engravers of the day. His interdisciplinarity, varied oeuvre and important patronage suggest that he in fact deserves higher esteem than he is presently accorded, recognising his importance to Seicento concerns and aesthetics, as well as his later influence in both the painted and printed media. Odoardo Fialettis success as an artist does not originate in a repetition of the type of career and success enjoyed by the Cinquecento masters, but rather in the willingness to vary his output, therefore allowing for the natural progression of the role of the artist in a changing society.

207

You might also like